... Therefore God does not exist.

[loinburger]

Re: Keygen

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
I second that, Keygen!!!
The world would be much better if all of us did, whether believing or not on their devine or plain human origin, just for the goodness in them.

The world would be a better place if I went on a pilgrimmage to Mecca? Why?

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by loinburger
The world would be a better place if I went on a pilgrimmage to Mecca? Why?

Didn't thought of that one!

Maybe that's why Keygen wrote "many things" and not all things.

[Raion]

A little of what I have read or thought.

Take nothing, how long can you have nothing?
Forever!
A unit of measurement has be evoked, a rule, a law.
Time has just been created out of nothing, applying a rule that forever is indeed a unit of measurement, a yardstick!

The Bible tells the rest, that certain attitudes lead to Hell for life, as in a terrible War, that people have free will to change anything for the better, instead of for the worse.

But knowing that humans are only humans, the thought of the existence of God can be debated probably forever.

If you have forever to debate the existence of God, God must exist!

"And he made us in his image"

What proof can God give himself that he truly exists.

Parameters and actions would have to apply.
Wisdom, love, all the positive emotions and thoughts and deeds.

Humanity places their own 'rules' on what they think is acceptable.

Evil must exist, therefore Good must exist.

Therefore, a proof for a God is possible to discern eventually even if it takes -- forever.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
When it comes to debates about God's existance I try to forget religion, dogma and beleif entirely. It detracts from the facts.

I think more relevant questions go along the lines of "Why is nature the way it is?". If the ultimate axiomatic answer is "just because", it is as unsatisfactory an answer as saying "because God made it that way". All you do is replace "God" with "Science".

If you believe that science will lead to our ultimate understanding of axiomatic laws, then you are believing we shall one day be omniscient and therefore be our own virtual Gods - for any God would understand His creation.

Exactly somewhere in the evolutionist idea there should be a moment in the infinite future - if the nature evolves, where they will be god. Well someone will eventually evolve to that status will it be humans? Who knows, but if this happens "If you believe that science will lead to our ultimate understanding of axiomatic laws, then you are believing we shall one day be omniscient and therefore be our own virtual Gods - for any God would understand His creation" than we might just become like God one day... or will we well the time is infinite as far as we know now. Or at least it could be long enough for someone to get to that stage as time and amount of knowledge is linear and knowledge of itself increases exponetially trough evolution. Well there might be someone like that already .

But that surely doesn't correspond to Christian God. On the other hand there might be a Christian/ Jewish GOd in existance but the religions got some of his attributes wrongly and many more other options availabe.

At the end what everyone says: nor approve nor disapprove, have your own reasons to believe what you will. If you have personal experience that God / or some such entity exists - and many people claim so - believe that there is one. Simple as that. Science cannot prove you wrong, nor can you prove scientific methods wrong. (obviously not ) Just don't kill or do harm in that name, (even simpler do good to othere in that name if it helps you do it, and nobody will complain - like Mother Theresa) if there is someone who is omnipotent and omnipresent he can manifest to whomever he wants or who asks him to do it at will, so why do you puny human even bother to prove its existance. (There is more historical reasons to try and disapprove the existance of God, but we can't do that either - disapprove scientifically).

[Wraith]

--"I have no evidence that Wraith exists"

Post your address. I'll swing by and bonk you with a cricket bat.

If god ever gives me a thick ear, then I'll start believing in him.

--"Oh yes I can, lots and lot's of times."

I'd like to see that.

May I ask if you've ever taken a formal logic class?

--"Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in."

See, this is the problem. For me, for it to qualify as evidence it has to be empirical and reproducable. Evidence that requires "belief" is, by definition, no evidence at all.

--"Atheists, however choose not to regard those testimonies as truthfull."

Well, I can't answer for atheists, since I'm an agnostic. I would suggest, however, that it's probably because there are other records with more evidence supporting them that make contradictory claims to these testimonies.

--"Entities are not to be multiplied nor integrated.
By how much are we multiplying God?
With what is God being integrated?"


Please take some philosophy and logic courses and get back to me later.

--"I would disagree and there is such a thing as a free lunch."

Sign me up. I could always use something for nothing.

--"A little of what I have read or thought"

Oh dear. Were you thinking quite sarcastically at the time?

Everyone, please take note that this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say the public school system needs serious attention. They obviously do not bother to teach the little things like logic, reasoning, or debate any more.

Wraith
"Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?"
-- Sister Miriam Godwinson

[MrFun]

My search for a good Bible has ended!!

I went to one of the theology professors on campus, who is also a Catholic priest for our university's chapel. He said that one Bible I might want to consider is this one:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition--New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha

After talking with him, and reading some samples of this Bible in his office, I decided that I will buy this copy ASAP.

[mactbone]

Love the quote Wraith.

Alright, as to Ecowiz's 3.a., explain to me this.
1. God is omniscient (covered under omnipotence)
2. God creates humans
3. God gives humans free will
4. omniscience = all knowledge, and the future = knowledge, therefore God knows the future
5. By knowing the future, the future cannot change
6. If the future cannot change, humans have no true free will

Secondly, you argue that the world is created from God (which btw, I don't think is church doctrine).
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omni benevolent
3. God creates world from self
4. World must = God which must = Good
5. There is evil

So, God is a contradiction.

You know, I just heard about Abelard's book, written in the thirteenth or twelfth century "Sic et Non"; translated means "Yes and No". Apparently this french catholic gathered together 158 contradictions set forth by various church founding fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and Paul.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Eli: Sid is God.
Therefore God must exist.

Sid is God.
Therefore, God is dead.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Wraith
Post your address. I'll swing by and bonk you with a cricket bat.

I'd be careful about the different meanings of the word 'bonking' in different parts of the English-speaking world. I would imagine that bonking with a cricket bat is illegal in most US states

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am sure you know that science does not deal with the "why's," just the "how's." Why are rubies red? Why do people walk on their feet, not their hands?

And there-in lies its failings. That is why I am perplexed when people say science explains/can explain all.

If you posit a god, all you have accomplished is to push the whole thing one step further, as in, "Why is there a god?"

I am not attempting to give answers, I have yet to fully comprehend the criteria of the questions.

Having said that, the conclusion I have drawn is that there is more to "it" than what is observable and measurable. Science is not enough, and anyone who does not go beyond science is limiting their scope of thought.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Wraith, I thought of answering your post.
I tryed to address your points, as I've done with others, one by one.

But by reading them I came to realize that you shown a shamefully pedantic atitude.

I never have taken formal Logic classes, nor will I ever take phillosofy. In a normal exchange of thoughts between reasonable inteligent people the knowledge one lacks is introduced in the discussion through another's disposition to share his. When a pedantic character comes and claims intelectual superiority out of the single formal teaching that becomes impossible.

I know I went on a limb to ask the question of by which unit is God multiplied. Taking literally, the definition of Okam's Razor does not disalow the existence of a single God (it disallows two, though). If there is more than such a literal interpretation and I failled to perceive it, it would be with great satisfaction that I would understand my mistake. But I take no satisfaction on paternalistic pedantic atitudes.

I hope that in other discussions you will be a bit more polite.

Be sure that if you, in a forum on Economics say something blatantly stupid I will not adress you to Economics classes. I will try an show you where you made your mistake.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Alright, as to Ecowiz's 3.a., explain to me this.
1. God is omniscient (covered under omnipotence)
2. God creates humans
3. God gives humans free will
4. omniscience = all knowledge, and the future = knowledge, therefore God knows the future
5. By knowing the future, the future cannot change
6. If the future cannot change, humans have no true free will

It depends of how you define future.
Actually the future is always out of your complete control, for what we control (and not always) is the present.
My definition of free will requires that you take control of your own destiny, given the many contingencies that forces you sometimes to make some decisions that were not your prefered ones.
It's a bit odd to imagine what would happen if I knew all my future, but I'll try. All my actions would, therefore be like the realization of a predetermined plan, like a play. I would not be living it in the way we alway perceive life, with the necessary uncertainty, the courrent discouvery and surprises. It would seem, to me, that I had lost all free will, even though all the actions I was doing were exactly the ones I would make if I didn't know the future.
But the point is that I don't know my future. So what if some entity, if existent, knows? That doesn't mean I'm given the "script" of the "play". It only means that that entity knows me all too well, well enough to know how I will act, not just because He predetermined it, but because I am who I am and I live in particular conditions fully known by Him. I would be using my free will, but He would know what my choice would be. It doesn't seem that contradictory to me.

Originally posted by MacTBone
Secondly, you argue that the world is created from God (which btw, I don't think is church doctrine).
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omni benevolent
3. God creates world from self
4. World must = God which must = Good
5. There is evil

So, God is a contradiction.

I'm not sure if it is church doctrine either, but I see no other reasonable explanation. I'll try and confront a Priest with that question and then I'll share His answer with you.
However, your conclusion number 4 isn't necessarilly true. The World does not need to equal God, even if being made from Him or a part of Him. Hope this example helps: my heart is a part of me but surelly does not equal me. Also, the church's explanation of evil usually give us all the "blame". I believe it is a bit of a Philosofical question so it would be advised to leave this to brilliant minds with formal education such as Wraith's .

Originally posted by MacTBone
You know, I just heard about Abelard's book, written in the thirteenth or twelfth century "Sic et Non"; translated means "Yes and No". Apparently this french catholic gathered together 158 contradictions set forth by various church founding fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and Paul.

It would be an interesting reading.

[Wraith]

--"Love the quote Wraith."

Amazing what you can get from video games, isn't it?

--"I'd be careful about the different meanings of the word 'bonking'"

I didn't even think about that...

--"But by reading them I came to realize that you shown a shamefully pedantic atitude."

Shamefully? The devil, as they say, is in the details.

--"Taking literally, the definition of Okam's Razor does not disalow the existence of a single God"

Which is what I found so incredibly amusing. You quite obviously did not understand the basic terminology being used, and just as obviously had no intention of actually checking it for yourself.

See this page for an explanation of Ockham's Razor. This was the second link in a Yahoo search.

Your reading of "entities" is incredibly too literal. Perhaps Rand's phrasing, concepts, is clearer.

In addition, this is a principle, not a proof. You cannot "prove" anything, as you claim to have done, using Ockam's Razor. It is nothing more than a guide as to which hypothesis should be tested first. (This is, btw, why I am an agnostic rather than an atheist.)

--"I hope that in other discussions you will be a bit more polite."

Probably not, if they're at all like this one. I've seen this subject, and the same arguments, mis-statements, mis-conceptions, and irrational assumptions, too many times to care any longer about being polite to the people who advance and support them.
Nothing I've talked about is beyond the basics of logic or philosophy. I do not believe it unreasonable to expect that people have at least a passing knowledge of the fundamentals when they choose to engage in a debate on such a subject.

Wraith
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."
-- Emo Philips.

[Giancarlo]

Bah! you people talk too much.... it goes like this:

1) Giancarlo says god does not exist.
2) Therefore god does not exist.
3) Giancarlo does not make a mistake.
4)

[Ecowiz Returns]

Let's end, shall we?

Originally posted by Wraith
Which is what I found so incredibly amusing. You quite obviously did not understand the basic terminology being used, and just as obviously had no intention of actually checking it for yourself.

See this page for an explanation of Ockham's Razor. This was the second link in a Yahoo search.

Your reading of "entities" is incredibly too literal. Perhaps Rand's phrasing, concepts, is clearer.

Thanks for the link (yeah, go figure, I actually read it!).
And it is clearly a reasonable concept.
To make it clear I'll write the sintesis of my understanding:
the point it presents is that, if there is no need to introduce an assumption, when conceiving a theory, that assumption should not be introduced.
It is a very good principle and those who say that it acts against many of the pseudo-cientific proposals about the existence of God are right.
But in what way that reasoning serves to those that when confronted with questions like
"What was there before the Big Bang?"
"What is there, after the single most simple unit of matter?"
says,
"God is"?
Am I to hope that Science will ever give me a complete answer on issues such as these?

Thanks for your honesty.
Although you keep an anoyningly pedantic atitude, requiring everybody to have that particular minimum level of knowledge only you can define, you actually had a positive contribution to the discussion. To bad not even that was in your own words. The link was good, though, so, thanks again.

Before ranting about my ignorance of minimum concepts you should have noticed that I only argued with the definition that was offered. You are right when saying that I didn't understood the concept of Ockam's Razor. Now I do (I hope). That is what usually happens in discussions: we are not always in the same level of knowledge about the themes we discuss and hopefully all learn something more.

I know I've learned from the contributions and discussions I had here.
On what you are concerned, thank you for the link and I won't, most likelly take Philosophy just to have a discussion in these forums. Thank you for the suggestion, though, oh Enlightened One .

One small advice: don't assume things about people you don't know. You are bound to have many compromising surprises, if you keep saying things like "you obviosly had no intention".