Examples:
1. God knows if you go to heaven or hell and you can’t change it but he gives you free will- contradictions.
2. God creates something out of nothing . It’s like equation 0+0 = 1.
3. God is immortal and can commit suicide because he can do everything- illogical
…
More examples and explanations on Youtube Video, link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-5M6lgCM8
I'm an Atheist, but I've debated with Theists so much I know how they will respond back. So I'll say it here:
1. God would know if you go to heaven or hell based on your actions derived from free will, but ultimately based on those he would then make his decision. You get a certain amount of time, you do the right thing or be punished based on the scriptures.
2. You are applying the laws of the creation itself to something that exists outside of what we known in this realm of creation. God exists outside of our own bubble of existence, he created it, therefore he is not subject to the specific laws we must live by. Math is a by-product of God's creation, it doesn't apply to him.
3. No, God has a plan, death as we know it does not apply to him because he is perfect and he is not bound by restrictions like suicide or a finite existence because the properties of his existence surpass that. You are applying human actions and consequences to a perfect deity that created everything.
There you go.
I know how hard is to talk to those people but actually they refer to the following points in a way that:
1. It means that he (God) doesn't know the future so he is not almighty.
2. Well, the believers apply the laws of logic to understand and explain God. How can they explain him if he is not logical.
3. So God can not do everything as it is said in the Bible so the Bible is wrong.
I mean he can not be understood if he is not logical. One can not use logic to prove that logic is wrong. It's like using language to show that it doesnt exist.
Quote from: mlecyq on June 19, 2014, 04:48:21 AM
I mean he can not be understood if he is not logical. One can not use logic to prove that logic is wrong. It's like using language to show that it doesnt exist.
While theists will often fall back to an argument that "God is too mysterious for our minds to comprehend," they also seem to think they know him quite well. Some even claim to have a personal relationship with him. This has always perplexed me. How do you comprehend the incomprehensible?
If religious people were sound and rational in their thinking they wouldn't be religious in the first place. To understand them would be like trying to understand a small child that believes in fairy tails and Santa with the same results. Belief in real magic. Solitary
0^0 = 1
something from nothing
(edit) why would a lawgiver break his own laws (in response to number 3)
And I don't see how disproving the christian god disproves god
That man also created a straw man, catholics do not believe that people were made to worship god, church doctrine states that man was made to interact with god
The video failed to give a clear definition of omniscience or perfection
if omniscience is defined as knowing all possible outcomes, the being knows all things, and free will still stands
because If i jump off a bridge, the being knows I will die and people will be hurt, if I don't, I continue living
I choose whether or not to jump off said bridge, but either way the being is not surprised and is still aware of what future will unfold due to the succession of events
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 02:31:47 PM
0^0 = 1
something from nothing
And I don't see how disproving the christian god disproves god
To paraphrase Discovering Religion's latest video:
"If something can't come from nothing, then the universe was never created (i.e. it has always been there), and you don't need a god.
"If something
can come from nothing, as new discoveries in physics are beginning to suggest, then the universe can pop into existence on its own, and you don't need a god."
And per Occam's Razor, if a variable is not required, 9 times out of 10 it can be cut from the equation.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
I am not attempting to argue for the existence of God, I am stating that facts presented in the video above are wrong
however with new answers come new questions, never eliminating the relevance of a variable such as a higher power
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 03:46:55 PM
I am not attempting to argue for the existence of God, I am stating that facts presented in the video above are wrong
however with new answers come new questions, never eliminating the relevance of a variable such as a higher power
I would ask, how exactly is this higher power relevant? Is it relevant because you choose to include it in the situation? Take your own biases and perceptions out of all this and then explain to me why it is relevant.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 02:31:47 PM
0^0 = 1
something from nothing
Isn't it cute when the religious try to do math?
0^0 is an indeterminate form. It has no unique answer.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 02:31:47 PM
(edit) why would a lawgiver break his own laws (in response to number 3)
Why not? Our own lawgivers break the law all the time. Yes, even laws they made.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 02:31:47 PM
The video failed to give a clear definition of omniscience or perfection
Mostly because there is no way to do either.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 02:31:47 PM
if omniscience is defined as knowing all possible outcomes, the being knows all things, and free will still stands
because If i jump off a bridge, the being knows I will die and people will be hurt, if I don't, I continue living
I choose whether or not to jump off said bridge, but either way the being is not surprised and is still aware of what future will unfold due to the succession of events
This would imply a god that doesn't care about your well-being, and as such there is no heaven or hell for you to go to because he doesn't give a shit about you either way.
It's not the individual inconsistencies that makes apologetics a farce; it's the entire picture, when you try to put many pieces of apologetic arguments together into a coherent whole.
How does mocking me accomplish anything?
Fine, my point about 0^0 is wrong, our universe still came from nothing
And sorry I forgot to specify in my bridge example. that this being prefers I not jump
And how is a higher power not relevant? the relevancy of a higher power cannot be analyzed without bias, everyone is biased, I am biased, you are biased
Im not interested in arguing, I just thought the video was a bit ridiculous
its a false dilemma to think there is no god, or there is a god, because there isn't enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion, just because there isn't a lot of evidence for something doesn't mean its false. For the longest time, people believed in a static universe, this is false
I am gnostic because I think there is a god but I acknowledge there might not be one
tbh im sick of being mocked, it isn't necessary, it doesn't make your argument better
I will not be responding to you anymore
Regards,
CP
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
How does mocking me accomplish anything?
Fine, my point about 0^0 is wrong, our universe still came from nothing
And sorry I forgot to specify in my bridge example. that this being prefers I not jump
And how is a higher power not relevant? the relevancy of a higher power cannot be analyzed without bias, everyone is biased, I am biased, you are biased
Im not interested in arguing, I just thought the video was a bit ridiculous
its a false dilemma to think there is no god, or there is a god, because there isn't enough evidence to draw a definite conclusion, just because there isn't a lot of evidence for something doesn't mean its false. For the longest time, people believed in a static universe, this is false
I am gnostic because I think there is a god but I acknowledge there might not be one
tbh im sick of being mocked, it isn't necessary, it doesn't make your argument better
I will not be responding to you anymore
Regards,
CP
I understand your dislike for being mocked in these types of discussions, it happens to me and you and everyone else with these types of discussions. Considering how I've very recently argued with an awful religious fundie that on Facebook has a history of mental illness and domestic abuse, and I did my best to talk with him yet he kept insulting me, I understand the position you are in right now. This type of stuff happens with political and religious discussions, I think it has to do with the fact that these are sensitive topics and we are missing the face to face, human element 'connection' you would get in real life.
You would find that most members on here are Agnostic Atheists, they are not certain of "God" not existing but they do not see enough sufficient evidence to convince them that "God" does exist either. An Atheist that is absolutely certain "God" does not exist would be a Gnostic Atheist. You already seem to be of a different stripe than the religious thumpers I usually talk to and observe, so I'm sure you'll understand this. In my view, most Atheists that exist seem to be Agnostic Atheists, and I am one as well.
The issue is not that we are totally convinced "God" does not exist, it's just that we see no legitimate evidence that "God" does exist. Whenever a religious person presents us with "evidence", it seems to be anecdotal, biased and cannot hold up intense objective scrutiny. Another problem is that religious people don't seem to understand this. They think we are awful demon-possessed freaks who are threatening their religion, but in reality we simply cannot see any legitimate evidence to convince us that their subjective deities are real.
To Protestant
You: catholics do not believe that people were made to worship god
Me:
Luke 18:1
,,Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." - He needs prayers cause then he supposedly gives them reward.
You: why would a lawgiver break his own laws
Me: Well in the bible you can read about alimighty god. The word almighty refers to being able to do everything which is logically contradictory.
If the definition is wrong tell us what is a clear definition of omniscience or perfection, because I think something like that does not exist. That's the point.
You:if omniscience is defined as knowing all possible outcomes, the being knows all things, and free will still stands
Me: Are you kidding me... What would be life worth if you were doomed from the birth to go to hell?
You:because If i jump off a bridge, the being knows I will die and people will be hurt, if I don't, I continue living
Me: But knowing everythig would mean that god knos from your birth that you will jump so you can not change and you must jump.
You:I choose whether or not to jump off said bridge
Me: Sorry it's not possible cause god knows if you jump tomorrow and you can't change it.
Quote from: SGOS on June 19, 2014, 06:54:14 AM
...
How do you comprehend the incomprehensible?
Uhh I guess the same way You expect the unexpected? :))
Um you quoted Luke 18 out of context, its a parable about persistence, and you are saying the point of it is god needs constant prayer. The purpose of prayer is communication, according to doctrine.
Second, allow me to clarify my point of the bridge story. The word omniscient does not appear in the bible as much as the phrase "beyond understanding" my point was to show that God can be omniscient and we can have free will. I think a more appropriate word would be extrascient, from the root "extra" which means beyond, instead of "omni" which means all.
I tried to show that omniscience is hard to conceptualize and can mean a number of different things, I think people try to hard to think what it would be like to know all things
Again redefine omniscience as knowing all possible outcomes, and free will still stands because said being knows what can happen but not what will happen, this is not a lack of knowledge because the being still knows the future and was not surprised by said decision
What's a god?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 20, 2014, 01:08:34 PMAgain redefine omniscience
(http://blogs.vso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg)
It isn't moving the goal post, I was very clear about my opinion on omniscience from the start
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 20, 2014, 03:22:24 PM
It isn't moving the goal post, I was very clear about my opinion on omniscience from the start
When you redefine words, you are moving the goal post.
My initial point was that omniscience is defined as knowing everything, i disagreed with the guy's use of the word omniscience, i even mentioned the word is not used a lot in the bible, and that if a being knows everything that could happen but not what will, they are still omniscient because the being cannot be surprised and has foreseen every possible outcome
I am not moving the goal post, my first point, and my current point is that there is wiggle room for the omniscience, especially as to what that would be like
I elaborated by showing that the word omnipotent can be used in different ways
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 20, 2014, 03:53:35 PM
My initial point was that omniscience is defined as knowing everything, i disagreed with the guy's use of the word omniscience, i even mentioned the word is not used a lot in the bible, and that if a being knows everything that could happen but not what will, they are still omniscient because the being cannot be surprised and has foreseen every possible outcome
If they don't know exactly what will happen, then there is something they don't know. If there is something they don't know, they are not omniscient. Stop twisting words to mean what you
want them to mean, rather than what they
actually mean.
That word doesn't even appear in the bible, so even using it to define the christian god isn't valid
As I said previously extra-scient, would be a better word, but it isn't a word
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
How does mocking me accomplish anything?
Generally mocking the religious does accomplish quite a bit. Talking to them isn't very thought provoking or interesting so mocking them is a way of educating them while making it entertaining for the individual (this is my personal opinion and is no way a reflection on others). You might say that mockery is a terrible method for trying to educate someone, but the outcome is the same if you tried to gently educate them with patience, understanding and compassion; which is to say, not a whole lot. People like to have opinions on everything yet can't be bothered to actually think for a second. Mockery makes that "non-thinking" tolerable.
I thought you weren't here for a discussion, CP, and here you are, discussing things. (Although with other members. Meanie. :cry:)
Oh brother! Talking about something that no one has ever experienced accept in their delusional mind, like all fictional characters with magical thinking. :wall: :rotflmao: Solitary
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 19, 2014, 10:52:16 PM
I am gnostic because I think there is a god but I acknowledge there might not be one
Doesn't that make you an
agnostic? Being a gnostic about this subject would mean that you absolutely know either that there is a God or that there is no God. If you are gnostic, you do not acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Just saying
Is it necessary to throw the baby along with the basket? There may be no God but religion still remains. There are benefits of religion, for theists as well as atheists. We have two distinctly atheistic religions in India. Buddhism and Jainism. Even Hinduism in the strain that I follow in advaita (non-duality), is absolutely, without any reservation, atheist. Religion shows me the way of life in my culture (dharma). Disbelief in existence of God should not necessarily mean absence of religion.
I was very specific in saying I don't want to talk to you, not that I don't want to talk
In short, I will not address people who mock me, especially when I am not acting in a way that would warrant disrespect or any sort of aggression. I try to be kind and respectful, I would appreciate for that sentiment to be reciprocated
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 20, 2014, 11:49:39 PM
I was very specific in saying I don't want to talk to you, not that I don't want to talk
In short, I will not address people who mock me, especially when I am not acting in a way that would warrant disrespect or any sort of aggression. I try to be kind and respectful, I would appreciate for that sentiment to be reciprocated
Hmmm, you didn't seem to address me, but whatever.
Quote from: Aupmanyav on June 20, 2014, 10:18:32 PM
Is it necessary to throw the baby along with the basket? There may be no God but religion still remains. There are benefits of religion, for theists as well as atheists. We have two distinctly atheistic religions in India. Buddhism and Jainism. Even Hinduism in the strain that I follow in advaita (non-duality), is absolutely, without any reservation, atheist. Religion shows me the way of life in my culture (dharma). Disbelief in existence of God should not necessarily mean absence of religion.
You have a very, very unique outlook on this situation, but considering how people think in terms of black and white I don't think what you said will catch on. The battle lines are drawn, and everybody is entrenched, waiting to attack their foes.
Aswers to Contemporary Protestant
You: "i disagreed with the guy's use of the word omniscience, i even mentioned the word is not used a lot in the bible"
Me: The numer of a word used by others does not change the meaning.
You: ,,I elaborated by showing that the word omnipotent can be used in different ways".
Me: Yeahh the same as with your ridiculuos bible parts such as killing people who work on weekends or adultery.
BIBLE QUOTES:
,,If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)"
,,Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)"
Now we should wait until you defend main kampf saying we don't know the words and we can understand it differently.
--------
Here are the essential problems with arguments from the theist side. If you are arguing from a standpoint of logic, your argument starts from a dichotomy and an essentially contradictory viewpoint. If you argue from evidence, the evidence- bible for example- has to be proven as valid, non contradictory and has both historic and provable source material. And it fails at both.
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 10:12:47 AM
Here are the essential problems with arguments from the theist side. If you are arguing from a standpoint of logic, your argument starts from a dichotomy and an essentially contradictory viewpoint. If you argue from evidence, the evidence- bible for example- has to be proven as valid, non contradictory and has both historic and provable source material. And it fails at both.
Quote from: stromboli on June 21, 2014, 10:12:47 AM
Here are the essential problems with arguments from the theist side. If you are arguing from a standpoint of logic, your argument starts from a dichotomy and an essentially contradictory viewpoint. If you argue from evidence, the evidence- bible for example- has to be proven as valid, non contradictory and has both historic and provable source material. And it fails at both.
Here comes the people that claim that the bible is supported by thousands of years of research, experts vouching for it's validity, other documents confirming it, and historical references that make it the most accurate book in the history of the world.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on June 20, 2014, 11:49:39 PM
I was very specific in saying I don't want to talk to you, not that I don't want to talk
In short, I will not address people who mock me, especially when I am not acting in a way that would warrant disrespect or any sort of aggression. I try to be kind and respectful, I would appreciate for that sentiment to be reciprocated
If you think what I was doing was
mockery, you have very low bar. The only thing that I can think of that I would consider even
vaguely as mockery was my crack about your math skills regarding 0^0. Quite frankly, not many people outside of technical disciplines would realize this.
Aupmanyav wrote: There may be no God but religion still remains. There are benefits of religion, for theists as well as atheists.
Me: what benefits? Threatning children and other people with torture, dont letting them to question things but be obedient to authority, wars, killing people who work on weekends, killing disobedient children, killing adulterers, don't care about your life, people around you case some lunatic said everything you need is he?
Frosty wrote: Here comes the people that claim that the bible is supported by thousands of years of research, experts vouching for it's validity, other documents confirming it, and historical references that make it the most accurate book in the history of the world.
Me: Yeah but You agree that the number of people doesn't show if it is true or not, and we actually prove it isn't by pointing contradictions, and showing it is dangerous.
Why not 1-1=0 and we just happening to discussing this +1 portion of the universe but the sum total is still only zero.