Christianity Illogical?

[ateista]

The claim of the Church is that there is always AN AUTHORITY for every argument for truth.

Science does not claim that anyone has an authority. This is the very reason we need “peer-reviews” and presentation of evidences that are “repeatable” and “consistent” with what is currently “accepted” as fact.

You summarized it well.

Eventually, someone has to say that the “accepted” truths are really truth (or at least part of it). But Science can never find that authority. The Church teaches us that: that same AUTHORITY is that one God she has been testifying for over 2000 years!

Science does not need it. The lack of such authority is the foundation of its strength.

If you are really into Scientific terms, you should at least first accept a POSTULATE that a God exists. Then derive some expected “consequence” of that postulate as a proof of the validity of the postulate. Does this ring a bell?

Sure thing. I accept the hypothesis of God. No problem. Then I am willing to follow up the corollaries. No problem. What is the result? Nothing.

The very definition of God is self-contradictory. Its corollaries are contradicted by themselves and by nature.

However, arguments against a God seems to sweepingly CONCLUDE His non-existence based on some biased analysis. Why not look for the one consistent explanation, just like how Science does? What if the Theory on the non-existence-of-a-God is just like the phlogeston theory? or the caloric theory? Are we just ignoring the proofs of God’s existence?

What proof? There are no proofs, there is not even evidence.

 

[geekborj]

Are you including leprosy, tuberculosis, heart disease, earthquakes, tornadoes, hunger, genocides in that great “design”?

These things in the list are consequences of beliefs like yours not believing in God and His design for us to life fully. All “imperfections” are like a sickness resulting from our continuing ignorance of things that we should not do because we are not designed to do such.

Unbridled free will is the dumbest idea for a good designer. I explained it many times before.

“Dumbest” is an allegation. Define your “dumb”? Are you claiming you are not “dumb”? Preposterous!

Well, that is a fun problem to explore. Let’s play with it. If I were the God as you imagine, the least thing I would do is “create” anything. If God is perfect and self-sufficient, there is no reason why to create anything else. What is point? To create an equal is impossible - supposedly. To create something inferior? Why? The very act of the alleged “creation” speaks of a “deficiency” of God, or asserts that God is not reasonable.

Unreasonable or unphatomable reason that human feeble mind can’t even think straight but blabber “idiot”, “dumb”, as equal to a final argument.

Only an idiot would “create” something for no reason whatsoever. Whan can a perfect, self-sufficient being lack? Someone else, to share his love with - is the usual answer. If that is case, then here is the analysis:

God wanted to have some others (humans) to share his love. God created this huge universe, in which there is one insgnificant planet with humans. Instead of simply sharing his love, he created them to be with “free will”, so they can “fall”, and he can be angry at them. Most of humans will never get his “love”, they will end up in hell. This is the very short analysis. The picture of God as you paint it is the picture of an idiot.

This is indeed an idiot’s description of the God we are speaking of. How shallow. Even in this “short” analysis of the God and the “love” we speak about proves that the analysis is short and pre-judged.

If God “needed” someone else to love, he could have created the humans directly in heaven, and share his love. Instead he deliberately “messed up” his own creation, and blames us for it. Can anything be dumber that this? I doubt it.

Now, you are blaming the Creator for your own “Fall”? Isn’t this a dumb analysis?

The two concepts: “just” and “merciful” are mutually exclusive.

Can’t agree more. That exclusivity is the main reason why you can be just and merciful at the same time. You do justice in the wrongdoing thus, you have punishment. As for the mercy, have you not even looked at the great plan of salvation?

The God you speak of is exactly like the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Something cannot be both “invisible” and “pink” at the same time. Sometimes “pink” and other times “invisible”, yes.

Wrong analysis. “Pink” and “Invisible” are inclusive since color is related to visibility. This is not a good counter example of “just” and “merciful.” Try round and pink Unicorn. Further, the example (unicorn) you choose is biased because you know that there is no such thing as Unicorn.

And there many more who prayed consistently and with belief, and it amounted to nothing. But I want to point out that God never answers prayers. To fulfill or deny a prayer is not an answer. There is no communication, God is silent.

Do you have any proof of “never”, “no communication”, “is silent”? You are describing something you have never looked at all.

I did not say it is. There are historically consistent event descriptions in it.

Biased answer. If you trying to argue that “consistency” is a proof itself, why not look at the same consistency of the Teaching of the Church?

If it is, it does a poor job at it.

Poor job? How?

In formal arguments, you never use “dumb” or even “idiot” as such are subjective descriptions. I would accept “inconsistent”, “unproven” and many other words that can be verified and argued with.

Apparently, you have resorted to “anger” and “hatred.” I’m sorry but these feelings can only cloud your judgement. As such, your arguments are indeed meaningless. Why not present a consistent counter proofs with “rawness in data” as you claimed somewhere else. If possible, let us try to look into psychology as it is a more scientific approach than just stating “idiot” and “dumb.”

Why are “atheists” argue almost the same. It just seems that its difficult for them to reach a point of argument without calling names?

I’m saddened by your reactions to the arguments i had. By not laying out your arguments for others, how can you even prove that God does not exist? Based on your reactions, it seems that you are just in a state of denial.

 

[geekborj]

The government is based on coercion and force. Not a good example.

Coercion and force? What a terrible government.

Of course I don’t. “Trust” must be earned. To use it as the “default” position is foolish and gullible.

From my point of view the church is a conglomerate of fallible old men, who have a vested interest in preserving their power over the population. Who hold totally unreasonable ideas about millions of facets of existence. Who have no ground to substantiate their views, except their own self-proclaimed authority. What is there to “trust”?

What a very limited view. Is this what the other atheist have told you? How can you prove “self-proclaimed”? “Unreasonable” is loaded and needs more proof. If you are to prove something to be “illogical,” never use the same description, it’s just begging the question.

And that is also a point which I have brought up before. If the story is true, then there is a precedent, then Jesus was willing to give direct evidence. Why is that a unique event? Other asked for the same thing, and their request is always met with silence.

Sweeping conclusion: “met with silence.” Maybe made with “deaf ears.”

If you equate the Bible with the “accepted” collection of books (called the NT), then you are right. Of course then the Bible becomes just another collection of ancient books, which is accepted by a certain group of people. Nothing special about it.

Nothing special? “Special”-ity of something depends on the “meaning” you put into it. Of course, it appears “non special” to you because it does not mean anything for you. As opposed probably to the manuscript of Einstien on relativity.

But you seem to forget that the Bible is composed of two different parts. The OT was around for many centuries way before there was a Catholic Church.

I’m very much aware of the Bible being composed of OT and NT. OT is a testament of God’s initial revelation of Himself through the prophets in preparation of the Gospel in NT.

You mean the Church selected those books, which support the Church, and declared the rest apocryphal?

In this case, you are assuming that the Church is thinking about influence. Unfortunately, the Church is just thinking of the Message in these “selected” books. The Church is just saying that these books contain exactly what she is teaching. The others are not COMPLETELY factual about she is teaching. Do you even have any idea on how the Canonization were done? Do you even know the criteria on choosing books to canonize (“authorize”)?

Again, your arguments are sweeping generalization and based on mis-information. It seems that your sources are just from those other atheists as well. Not a balanced view i think.

I would not attempt to convince anyone else. God could reveal himself to everyone, if he wanted to. But I would be pretty happy with such a revelation and I would ask God to go and do it for everyone else.

But if you were God, would you? Where’s being human in there if we would know God without any effort at all? Secondly, how could we even meet God if the mere sight will melt you to your death?

No, it is not the same. Please let me tell you one more time, and then let’s drop it: “in science there is the theoretical and practical possibility to verify the claims personally, if I so choose”. There is no such method with religion. It is boring to answer the same invalid objection over and over again.

I’m asking about the EXISTENCE of the personalities. Not of their ideas.

We are comparing HISTORY and the Accounts of the Bible. Don’t confuse things.

Right. They claim, and the only “proof” they have is their own claim. If you are willing to say that this is sufficient for you, then so be it. It is not sufficient for me.

Then there is nothing that can get into you then. You just closed the argument being not sufficient to you. Anyone can just say, it is not sufficient for himself. Just stops you from moving on to the next argument.

Of course I bet that you are not gullible and do not use this “trust” method as a general principle. You do not trust everyone by default. Why would you?

Indeed. It is from the testimony of many, of history, and the consistency with Reason that i believe.

I would have to believe - or more precisely, I would know. I cannot doubt the testimony of my senses. If there is one thing that a sane person can never do, it is doubting one’s sanity. Yes, I would be very skeptical about it. I would try to come up with everything I can to prove that this hypothical occurrence in not an illusion.

As you have dodged every proof offered, how could you do “everything”?

Nonsense. What they said did not disappear. it is still verifyable today. And when they were wrong (the Newtonian worldview) it was refuted.

Newtonian worldview is not refuted! It was improved. Newton’s idea is still valid as long as the set of assumptions (which is actually a subset of the set of relativity’s) are met. Science develops by building on from the previous. It does not destroy previous theories about Nature: It builds and generalizes to cover more cases.

“Nonsense” means? Another favorite word of atheists arguments.

You can doubt it, if you so choose. I do not “threaten” you with eternal damnation if you remain skeptical.

Then why be threatened if you really don’t believe in the entire Idea? Sounds like a denial to me. Not an antithesis.

 

[geekborj]

No, facts exist whether anyone “believes” them or not. The universe exists, the laws of nature exist.

Are you stating an axiom or a conclusion? How do you convince yourself about this? The existence of the universe and the existence of laws are AXIOMS, not fact.

Yes, I am free to disregard everything the church says. Are you? Fortunately today the church has no secular power any more - at least in most societies. But it still has power over those who accept its authority.

The point was that there is no freedom to question the authority of Rome, if you are a Catholic. There will be repercussions. There will be excommunication. The method of enquiry is different for science and religion.

So, if the Church showed you a historical record of the Teachings and accounts in a tangible book, you would “freely” disregard it? Now, you CAN disregard your senses. It really seems that no crystalization of solid argument against God can be made.

The explanations are attacked. The facts are there to observe for everyone. God cannot be observed, can he?

Same with you, can energy be observed? Can fields be observed?

See, we only observe using indirect proofs. As for God, you just ignore them so there’s no point of even presenting them to you.

Excellent idea. I have been collecting some points, but they need to be polished and refined. The truth is that personally I have nothing against Christianity as a belief system. As long as it is held as a private belief system, and does not aspire to influence politics, it is none of my concern - except as a fun topic to be discussed.

Or maybe, there is really nothing to be polished and refined! Present a concise point by point argument of your proof. Otherwise, both Hypothesis is just as doubtful as each other. Using Pascal’s wager, i would side with God’s possibility.

I already stated that the possibility of personal verification is the deciding matter, not actually carrying it out, because it is impractical. The truths of science are out there, they can be verified.

“They can be verified.”? How? Isn’t it also a personal verification?

The “truths” offered by Christianity are based on magic. Resurrection? Magic. Walking on water? Magic. Virgin birth of a male? Magic. “Infinite” wisdom? “Infinite” power? All magic. Angels, demons, devil, eternal fire? All magic.

“Magic” is not a proper word. Magic is an event or thing that can’t be explained. “Mystery” is a proper word. It can be proven but is yet to be understood. That is, we appeal to the limitation of human understanding.

There is nothing - in principle - which can be verified by a skeptic. I may not be interested in personal verification, but the possibility must be there.

Same is true for God! Don’t dismiss it.

Now God’s goodness or love, that is not magic. It is an assertion, which can be verified, and the verification keeps failing. Love is either an empty word, or it must manifest itself in actions.

Seems a stumbling block to understanding huh? Christians are also amazed by this “love.” Definitely, no human can perfect this.

If you accept God’s goodness as an axiom, then it is logical (but not reasonable) to say that all the observed and perceived lack of love is merely a “measurement error”. We are not capable of making an accurate judgment, because of our limitations. Yes that is logical, in its way.

It is not a “measurement error” it is simply a failure of human race to “approximate” that love.

If however, God’s goodness is a hypothesis, then it is not logical to disregard all those “measurement errors”. The testing of a hypothesis should never be clouded by preconceptions. If something seems to contradict the hypothesis, then it must be taken seriously.

Hey, don’t you know that “testing of hypothesis” is always clouded by preconceptions? Have you heard about “Themata in Science”?

In other words: “If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, it is very probably a duck”. It is not an elephant disguised as a duck.

“elephant” cannot definitely be disguises as a “duck.” These words are but a label of something we observe. Thus, the “look”, “walk”, “quack”, and “taste” does not PROVE that it is a duck. It is a duck by LABEL.

Our limitations notwithstanding, if God’s goodness looks like nonexistent, then it is very probably nonexistent - and to assume it is unreasonable and illogical.

As for scientist, it was thought that only very few people completely understands the Quantum Theory. Is that theory non-existent?

Now this brings up another interesting point. All “flavors” of Christianity claim that they are the one and only “true” flavor. (As a matter of fact, so do all religions…) Is there an objective way to decide to decide, which claim is true? Something that is compelling for all the others to accept your argument and abandon their “false” religion?

Look at history. Is there any Christian “sect” that you know that has existed for at least 1000 years aside from the Catholic Church?

You know, that reminds me of another old joke: “Who belongs to a religious sect? Answer the person who attends a church next to yours”.

This is a joke for those “flavors” of Christians. They refuse to look at history carefully just as atheists deny the history.

 

[ateista]

These things in the list are consequences of beliefs like yours not believing in God and His design for us to life fully. All “imperfections” are like a sickness resulting from our continuing ignorance of things that we should not do because we are not designed to do such.

Really? So my lack of belief causes tornadoes, earthquakes and diseases? If I had such a power… wow, the fun stuff I would do! You sure have a very strange proposition.

“Dumbest” is an allegation. Define your “dumb”? Are you claiming you are not “dumb”? Preposterous!

Dumb design is to allow your creation to “misbehave”. Good design only allows wanted or expected “behavior”. This is pretty elementary stuff. A lazy creator does not bother to build in safeguards, and then “covers up” by “ordering” his creation not to “misbehave”. In computer science language such design is called “buggy”.

This is indeed an idiot’s description of the God we are speaking of. How shallow. Even in this “short” analysis of the God and the “love” we speak about proves that the analysis is short and pre-judged.

Your saying it does not make it so.

Now, you are blaming the Creator for your own “Fall”?

Of course I do. The creator is always responsible for the behavior of his creation.

Can’t agree more. That exclusivity is the main reason why you can be just and merciful at the same time.

At least we can agree on something.

Do you have any proof of “never”, “no communication”, “is silent”? You are describing something you have never looked at all.

Well, you should be able to bring up cases, when God comes out from the sky and speaks to us. I am pretty sure it would make a rather decent impact, especially with the mass media wielding their cameras and microphones.

Apparently, you have resorted to “anger” and “hatred.”

I am not “angry” or feel “hatred”. Toward whom? At the believers? They don’t hurt me, and I think they are decent fellows (most of them most of the time anyway). Toward God? How could I feel “anger” and “hatred” toward someone whose very existence I do not believe in?

I’m saddened by your reactions to the arguments i had. By not laying out your arguments for others, how can you even prove that God does not exist?

I don’t need to. You make a positive call, you present arguments that God does exist. I will be happy to contemplate it. All I am asking that - please - leave the old, refuted “arguments” alone. (Cosmological, first cause, prime mover, modal ontological, etc, etc… I am tired of refuting them the zillionth time. They all are fallacious.)

Based on your reactions, it seems that you are just in a state of denial.

A denial of what?

 

[ateista]

Coercion and force? What a terrible government.

Every government. Have you ever heard of a government which “asks” you to pay your taxes?

But if you were God, would you?

Reveal myself? Never! I already said that I would never create anything if I were God. Pointless exercise.

But let’s suppose that I were to “take over” this existence as it is today. I would perform one act. Wipe out all the problems of the world (no big deal for an omnipotent being), and erase all the memory of the “old regime”. Then I would wipe out this “free will” and replace it with a good design, so there would be no more murders, genocides, only decent, good behavior.

In other words: create heaven on Earth. Extend the life of everyone, so they could live as long as they wanted to. Remove the diseases, hunger and pain. Allow life to be fun. Minor stuff like that.

And I would never reveal that I did it.

Where’s being human in there if we would know God without any effort at all?

What has “effort” to do with it?

Secondly, how could we even meet God if the mere sight will melt you to your death?

Would it now? You said that God sometimes reveals himself to some selected individuals. There seems to be no detrimental effect on them.

 

[geekborj]

Really? So my lack of belief causes tornadoes, earthquakes and diseases? If I had such a power… wow, the fun stuff I would do! You sure have a very strange proposition.

“Resulting” is not equal to direct “cause.” And by the way, not just an individual of course, i speak about humanity as a whole.

 

[ateista]

“Resulting” is not equal to direct “cause.” And by the way, not just an individual of course, i speak about humanity as a whole.

I know. The exact circumstances were described in Genesis. The “disobedience” made God angry, and he **cursed **his creation. That is the reason. So don’t blame us. We did not do it. Blame God for losing his temper - a most “un-God-like” behavior. One strike and you are out? Very stern sentence… not “just” nor “merciful”.

Though your original “accusation” was quite personal:

These things in the list are consequences of beliefs like yours not believing in God and His design for us to life fully.

 

[OTavern]

Reveal myself? Never! I already said that I would never create anything if I were God. Pointless exercise.

But let’s suppose that I were to “take over” this existence as it is today. I would perform one act. Wipe out all the problems of the world (no big deal for an omnipotent being), and erase all the memory of the “old regime”. Then I would wipe out this “free will” and replace it with a good design, so there would be no more murders, genocides, only decent, good behavior.

In other words: create heaven on Earth. Extend the life of everyone, so they could live as long as they wanted to. Remove the diseases, hunger and pain. Allow life to be fun. Minor stuff like that.

And I would never reveal that I did it.

Ateista, there are some minor points you are missing or have misunderstood.

1. What if “consciousness” depends upon having “free will?” That is, that a being** can only** actually be conscious if it in fact does have free will; that being independent “of God” or “free” is actually a “logical” requirement to have consciousness. By creating a being with “free” will, God actually “rescinds” or “revokes” His own omnipotence within that being in order for it to be independently “actualized” and have awareness.
2. What if by “never” revealing yourself, if you were God, to what you have created, you in fact are depriving those beings of the “fullness” of “fun.” They can and will never have complete “fun” until they “have you,” so to speak.
3. What if those beings you have created can never have “real fun” until they “have you” (defined as the fullness of being) and they can never have you until they “become” you, i.e., become “one” with you?
4. By becoming one with you, those beings take on all of your traits, i.e., knowledge, power, benevolence, etc. so their trustworthiness would be a paramount consideration for you “as their creator.”
5. Free will (i.e., independent existence) can lead to dire consequences unless it is “contained” within some kind of material (or possibly other) existence. By putting human beings within a material (or other) “framework” God has the opportunity to “work with us,” to work with our free wills to gradually reveal himself, but only with full assent, so that we can enjoy “fullness of being.”

In other words, God can only reveal Himself, His power, knowledge, benevolence, etc., only insofar as He can “trust” us for the simple reason that these “traits,” once they become a part of us can be abused and create “problems” for other beings in existence. So unless God can be absolutely certain of our intention, of our trustworthiness, He cannot “reveal” Himself to us.

So in answer to your points above

Reveal myself? Never! I already said that I would never create anything if I were God. Pointless exercise.

Not pointless, because complete joy and fullness of being is only possible for the beings you “create” if you completely “give” yourself to them. You are a greater source of joy and happiness than any “thing” in existence, so they would be deprived if you didn’t reveal yourself.

But let’s suppose that I were to “take over” this existence as it is today. I would perform one act. Wipe out all the problems of the world (no big deal for an omnipotent being), and erase all the memory of the “old regime”. Then I would wipe out this “free will” and replace it with a good design, so there would be no more murders, genocides, only decent, good behavior.

If consciousness is only possible as a result of “free will” then no one but you would be there to enjoy the “good design” you have created.

In other words: create heaven on Earth. Extend the life of everyone, so they could live as long as they wanted to. Remove the diseases, hunger and pain. Allow life to be fun. Minor stuff like that.

Again, if consciousness requires free will, then no matter how long life went on, there would be “nothing” there to enjoy it even without hunger, pain, etc.

And I would never reveal that I did it.

If complete fullness of joy would only be available to your created “friends” by their enjoyment of “you” then by not revealing yourself, you would be depriving them of a life of complete “fun.”

I suspect this is something of the quandary God is in.

1. To create conscious beings they must be independent and freely determining.
2. To create “free” beings, God must “withhold” His omnipotence and omniscience from “taking hold” within those beings.
3. To have full joy and completeness of “meaning” these beings must ‘freely’ open themselves to God’s presence and power.
4. To become accessible to God’s presence and power, free beings share these qualities (i.e., they become powerful and knowing), hence God cannot make Himself known to “free” beings without being “absolutely” certain of their “goodness” and trust. They must prove their “trust.”
5. To know God, and, therefore, to share His power and knowledge, free beings must “freely” give themselves up completely and without reservation to “death.” Hence, the requirements in the Gospels to “sell all you have,” to “lose yourself” and to “carry your cross.” All these, not under our own terms, but as God directs, hence, “your will, not mine be done.”

 

[OTavern]

I know. The exact circumstances were described in Genesis. The “disobedience” made God angry, and he **cursed **his creation. That is the reason. So don’t blame us. We did not do it. Blame God for losing his temper - a most “un-God-like” behavior. One strike and you are out? Very stern sentence… not “just” nor “merciful”.

I suspect this “disobedience” was some kind of ontological “falling” out of God by a choice. The “curse” was not so much an angry reaction, but a critical and “essential” consequence of human choice.

What if the fall was actually “a shattering” of humankind into the splintered, disunited, dehumanized, thoughtless, alienated beings we are and God is now going through a process of “putting” us back together, uniting us back into His Being? The “body” of Christ – much of Paul’s teaching is grounded in this idea.

 

[ateista]

Ateista, there are some minor points you are missing or have misunderstood.

That is always possible.

1. What if “consciousness” depends upon having “free will?” That is, that a being** can only** actually be conscious if it in fact does have free will; that being independent “of God” or “free” is actually a “logical” requirement to have consciousness. By creating a being with “free” will, God actually “rescinds” or “revokes” His own omnipotence within that being in order for it to be independently “actualized” and have awareness.

Is there any evidence for such an assumption? I rather doubt it.

But even if there is, our freedom to act out our desires is curtailed by our physical limitations - it is not absolute. And no one cries “foul”, no one says: “just because I am unable to fly by flapping my arms, my free will is grieviously limited”. It is obvious, that we can imagine something and unable to carry it out, because the laws of nature prevent us.

1. What if by “never” revealing yourself, if you were God, to what you have created, you in fact are depriving those beings of the “fullness” of “fun.” They can and will never have complete “fun” until they “have you,” so to speak.

That is also an unsupported assumption. The knowledge of the existence of a creator is demeaning. It shows that someone put me into a position where I might not wish to be. It shows that I am not in control of my own existence. It shows that there is a higher level of existence which is closed to me.

And no amount of “promise” that I might get there if I “behave” will alleviate that humiliation, that I am just here as a “test”. I don’t think that treating humans as lab rats is “uplifting”, even if the rats are “promised” to be taken out of the maze, if they praise and love and obey the experimenters “enough”. Because that is the picture you described.

Besides any involvement with an experiment distorts the results. It is absolute “no-no” to interfere with your experiment, because you will taint the results.

If those created ones can surmise my existence without any revelation, then so be it. I would make absolutely sure that nothing points in my direction, and that their speculation is totally groundless.

Exactly as it is in our current situation, by the way. There is no revelation, there are no miracles, there is only unsupported and groundless speculation.

1. What if those beings you have created can never have “real fun” until they “have you” (defined as the fullness of being) and they can never have you until they “become” you, i.e., become “one” with you?

Then I would create them exactly like me in the first place. However, the believers maintain that this is impossible. Not that I accept their assertion.

1. By becoming one with you, those beings take on all of your traits, i.e., knowledge, power, benevolence, etc. so their trustworthiness would be a paramount consideration for you “as their creator.”

That is not something anyone has suggested to me before. And it is in dire contradiction to the assumption that God is unique.

1. Free will (i.e., independent existence) can lead to dire consequences unless it is “contained” within some kind of material (or possibly other) existence. By putting human beings within a material (or other) “framework” God has the opportunity to “work with us,” to work with our free wills to gradually reveal himself, but only with full assent, so that we can enjoy “fullness of being.”

Now do we have free will or don’t we?

In other words, God can only reveal Himself, His power, knowledge, benevolence, etc., only insofar as He can “trust” us for the simple reason that these “traits,” once they become a part of us can be abused and create “problems” for other beings in existence. So unless God can be absolutely certain of our intention, of our trustworthiness, He cannot “reveal” Himself to us.

In other words, he could have created us exactly like he is in the first place, and then there would be no “danger”. There would be a totalilty of existence. Or he could have just chosen those selected few who will “pass the test”, and forget about the rest. After all you believe that God is omnisicent. don’t you?

Why waste time and effort on creating the those who are known to fail in the experiment in the first place? To add diverstity? That is also very cruel. Use them as a counter-point in the choire? The ones in heaven sing praises, and the ones in hell scream their pain?

… continued due to the 6000 char limitation

 

[ateista]

Not pointless, because complete joy and fullness of being is only possible for the beings you “create” if you completely “give” yourself to them. You are a greater source of joy and happiness than any “thing” in existence, so they would be deprived if you didn’t reveal yourself.

Wait a second. God is supposed to be self-contained, and allegedly lacks nothing. Now you say that God’s fullness of existence can only be achieved for him if he shares himself with us. Is that the offical position of Rome?

If consciousness is only possible as a result of “free will” then no one but you would be there to enjoy the “good design” you have created.

As I said, I would not create anything, since it can only detract from my “perfection”. A “perfect” God + and “imperfect” world is less than a perfect God alone.

Again, if consciousness requires free will, then no matter how long life went on, there would be “nothing” there to enjoy it even without hunger, pain, etc.

Pleasure and pain are firmly rooted in this existence. I don’t look any further than that.

If complete fullness of joy would only be available to your created “friends” by their enjoyment of “you” then by not revealing yourself, you would be depriving them of a life of complete “fun.”

There are two possibilities: either I would create them as equals, and then they would share the same abilities, or I would create them as lab rats (I intentionally use this phrase to illustrate the humiliation of our position, though I have nothing against them. They are pretty cute little creatures) and that I would never do.

As a few times before, let me suggest a science-fiction short story. The author is Stanislaw Lem, the title of the story is “Non serviam” and it appeared in a collection titled: “A Perfect Vacuum”. It was written as a review of a non-existent book, in which the scientist experimenter creates artificial humans inside a computer environment. He is God to them in every sense of the word.

I strongly recommend to get it from your local library. Less than 20 pages long, but very heavy-duty reading, loaded with cybernetics and computer science language as well as philosophy. However, it is most enjoyable, and will shed new light on the whole God-human dichotomy.

If you would read it, I will be happy to read your thoughts.

 

[OTavern]

Wait a second. God is supposed to be self-contained, and allegedly lacks nothing. Now you say that God’s fullness of existence can only be achieved for him if he shares himself with us. Is that the offical position of Rome?

I didn’t say fullness of being would be lacking to God but to His “created beings” if God does not share Himself. Not the other way around.

As I said, I would not create anything, since it can only detract from my “perfection”. A “perfect” God + and “imperfect” world is less than a perfect God alone.

That may be the profound difference between you and God. Perhaps God created a “potentially perfect world” and is doing everything to bring it about for us to experience. The tradeoff is that we can only experience it IF we have consciousness (dependent upon having free will) and IF we will “freely” approach creation from His vantage point. To see it as He does, so to speak.

There are two possibilities: either I would create them as equals, and then they would share the same abilities, or I would create them as lab rats (I intentionally use this phrase to illustrate the humiliation of our position, though I have nothing against them. They are pretty cute little creatures) and that I would never do.

I suspect this is a limitation of yours that you can only see two possibilities.

As a few times before, let me suggest a science-fiction short story. The author is Stanislaw Lem, the title of the story is “Non serviam” and it appeared in a collection titled: “A Perfect Vacuum”. It was written as a review of a non-existent book, in which the scientist experimenter creates artificial humans inside a computer environment. He is God to them in every sense of the word.

I strongly recommend to get it from your local library. Less than 20 pages long, but very heavy-duty reading, loaded with cybernetics and computer science language as well as philosophy. However, it is most enjoyable, and will shed new light on the whole God-human dichotomy.

If you would read it, I will be happy to read your thoughts.

I will look at it. However, I think the basic issue stems from attempting to see God’s perspective while holding onto a limited “ego” based one. It is impossible to understand God from this viewpoint. Only being willing to “give up” one’s own perspective and “trust” God to show Himself will rid of us our prejudices. That is why faith or trust in God is so important.

That is why I think a perspective based solely on science is doomed because it is inherently directed by the “fallen” nature of man. The Lord of the Rings makes precisely this point. Only when we are willing to rescind our grasp on the world will we “see” the world as it should be viewed. One must me willing to “give up” the “ring of power” in order for it (power) not to enslave us.

 

[ateista]

That may be the profound difference between you and God.

I wish it would be the only difference. Boy, would you see some fireworks! No more murders, tortures, illnesses, wars, earthquakes… beautiful weather, soft breeze… everyone has enough food to survive, and lots of free time on their hands to produce art and beauty… or ponder the joys of living and working to enhance it a little more. There would be all the mysteries of nature to explore… what fun it would be.

Who would miss the black plague? The despots and the torturers? The politicians and the lawyers? The wars and genocides? The tsunamis and widlfires? Would you? I would not.

Perhaps God created a “potentially perfect world” and is doing everything to bring it about for us to experience.

I would have created a “perfect” world, right off the bat.

The tradeoff is that we can only experience it IF we have consciousness (dependent upon having free will) and IF we will “freely” approach creation from His vantage point. To see it as He does, so to speak.

The need for “free will” as a prerequisite for consciousness is merely your assumption. There is nothing to substantiate it.

I suspect this is a limitation of yours that you can only see two possibilities.

If you want to enlighten me, I will listen. The position we are in is that of the lab rats. Being exposed to some tests, which we do not understand.

However, I think the basic issue stems from attempting to see God’s perspective while holding onto a limited “ego” based one. It is impossible to understand God from this viewpoint.

Cannot be substantiated. I am sure you don’t want to put me down, but this kind of reasoning strongly reminds me of Uri Geller’s assertion that he performs paranormal acts, and one must “believe” him first and then can gain understanding of what he does.

That always smells like BS to me. As long as one approaches a question with an open mind, and is willing to contemplate the new “stuff”, no more is needed. As a matter of fact it is harmful to one’s objectivity to go any further.

Only being willing to “give up” one’s own perspective and “trust” God to show Himself will rid of us our prejudices. That is why faith or trust in God is so important.

Sounds like putting the cart in front of the horse. One cannot or should not trust the unknown. That is what the con-artists ask from you: “But please trust me: this snake-oil will cure your cancer”.

That is why I think a perspective based solely on science is doomed because it is inherently directed by the “fallen” nature of man.

The “fallen nature of man” is just an assumption. Science has not accepted it, nor has any need for it. If you look around yourself, you will see what science did for you.

Religion has never produced anything useful. The advances in every facet of existence are simply astonishing and they make our life better, longer, healthier, more productive… and that is something you should thank science for.

Obviously science cannot make you happy, but at least takes off the burden of spending 12 hours a day doing backbreaking labor on the fields which may or may not provide sustenance for simple survival. The free time you enjoy and partially spend on these boards is the direct consequence of the advances of science. So, don’t dismiss it too lightly.

 

[OTavern]

One cannot or should not trust the unknown. That is what the con-artists ask from you: “But please trust me: this snake-oil will cure your cancer”.

You are completely dependent upon the “unknown” for your very existence. What you “know” is miniscule in comparison to what you do not.

Religion has never produced anything useful. The advances in every facet of existence are simply astonishing and they make our life better, longer, healthier, more productive… and that is something you should thank science for.

Actually, this has yet to play out. As Vox Day says in The Irrational Atheist:

The five major religions of the world, in order of their appearance on the scene, are Hinduism, traditional Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. These five religions have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. Despite 116 centuries filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse religions, all competing for mindshare, resources, and dominance, the species has not merely survived, it has thrived.

Since the advent of science about 350 years ago, and more critically, since the dominance of the scientific method in the past century, scientific “advances” now threaten the very existence of the planet and all life on it.

Vox Day adds:

In the last sixty years, science has produced a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste and even, supposedly, the accidental production of mini black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.

As the facts clearly show, any advances and benefits you claim to have been bestowed on us by benevolent science may very quickly disappear into oblivion, along with a great deal of life on this planet, unless science can pull some “magic” out of its bag of tricks. To claim science can and will do so is positively staking all not just on the “unknown,” not just on “snake oil,” but on a methodology that, in the hands of human beings, and in a very short time, has created the potential for the extermination of life on Earth.

Science simply has not proven its trust.

If you or “science” cannot see evidence for the “fallen nature” of man throughout the history of man on earth, then it is no wonder you cannot seem to summon the clarity to see God, either. Somethings seems lacking in your ability to gather evidence

 

[ateista]

You are completely dependent upon the “unknown” for your very existence. What you “know” is miniscule in comparison to what you do not.

Sorry, I fail to see the significance. Obviuosly our knowledge can never be “complete”, not just for an individual, but for the whole humanity either.

But we do not “rely” on what we don’t know. We do not even know, what we don’t know… scientifically speaking. On the other hand, what we know, we know quite well. We know that there is no such thing as walking on water, there is no such thing as waking a dead. We know that the circumference of the circle is not 3 times its diameter.

Since the advent of science about 350 years ago, and more critically, since the dominance of the scientific method in the past century, scientific “advances” now threaten the very existence of the planet and all life on it.

You ask for too much. Science and technogy are value-neutral. There is no hammer which can only be used on a nail, but not on someone’s head.

What the results of science are used for, is not the “fault” of science, it is the fault of the ones who wield that “hammer”.

If you or “science” cannot see evidence for the “fallen nature” of man throughout the history of man on earth, then it is no wonder you cannot seem to summon the clarity to see God, either. Somethings seems lacking in your ability to gather evidence

Haha! The fallen nature presupposes that there was a better one. And that is just one more in the huge bag of “assumptions”, none of which can be substanitated.

As a matter of fact I see the opposite, I see a slow, but observable improvement in human “morals” or interactions. The raw, barbaric “might makes right” attitude is going out of fashion. Helpfulness is on the rise. Technology - which you do not seem to appreciate as much as I do - speeds up the delivery the materiel to help with disaster recovery, and millions of people pool their resources to help the effort. So there is quite a bit of attitude change which is encouraging,

Admittedly, the progress is slow. I wish it would be faster. But the first prerequisite of helpfulness is having the wherewithal to offer help. It presupposes that there is something to share. (And of course willingness to share it.)

Since it is science and tecnology is what makes larger crop-yields possible - where about 3-4% of the population in the US is able to feed the whole country (and there is a surplus, too), let’s not dismiss them so lightly.

 

[OTavern]

As a matter of fact I see the opposite, I see a slow, but observable improvement in human “morals” or interactions. The raw, barbaric “might makes right” attitude is going out of fashion. Helpfulness is on the rise. Technology - which you do not seem to appreciate as much as I do - speeds up the delivery the materiel to help with disaster recovery, and millions of people pool their resources to help the effort. So there is quite a bit of attitude change which is encouraging.

Again, the facts belie your “feelings” that humanity is becoming more helpful and moral.

The fact is governments (and almost solely atheist ones at that) have committed an array of atrocities in the past 90 years that make all the cruelties accumulated through human history pale in comparison. The facts below are not speaking of wars at all.

From Vox Day:

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

He provides a wealth of data to support that conclusion. If we were to add data from the wars of the past 100 years, and compare both of these to the historical havoc created previous to the past 100 years, it is clear that humanity is not becoming more moral, but the atrocity rate is at least keeping pace with the exponential rate of population growth. Your impression to the contrary is merely that, an impression possibly from your limited daily experience – you just hang out with a decent crowd.

Since it is science and tecnology is what makes larger crop-yields possible - where about 3-4% of the population in the US is able to feed the whole country (and there is a surplus, too), let’s not dismiss them so lightly.

There is no denying specific benefits of science. What I objected to was the claim that science, on the whole has been of great benefit, i.e., the good not only outweighs the bad, but “greatly” outweighs it. That is debatable given the potentially lethal problems for humanity and the Earth that science through its many potent advances in technology, in the hands of human beings, has created.

 

[Mick7]

This thread began with the question: Is Christianity illogical? It has of course branched away from this, apparently without the error in the question being dealt with.

Christianity cannot be illogical. Logic is concerned only with the construction of an argument to determine whether or not a particular conclusion follows from the premises used. All premises used in an argument would have to be true in order for the conclusion to be true once provan to be logically valid. Any falacy in any premisis would by necessity be in the conclusion because the conclusion follows from the premises in a logically valid argument.

It is quite possible to construct arguments in support of Christian teaching that are both locally valid and true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on universal values - that is, values that can be found at the heart of any sound ethical system, such as the value and dignity of the person.

It is evident from the way the question is put that the term “logic” is not properly understood. Perhaps a more challenging question would have been: Is Christianity rational? This is an entirely different matter and one which seems to have inspired subsequent posts.

 

[Filius99993]

This thread began with the question: Is Christianity illogical? It has of course branched away from this, apparently without the error in the question being dealt with.

Christianity cannot be illogical. Logic is concerned only with the construction of an argument to determine whether or not a particular conclusion follows from the premises used. All premises used in an argument would have to be true in order for the conclusion to be true once provan to be logically valid. Any falacy in any premisis would by necessity be in the conclusion because the conclusion follows from the premises in a logically valid argument.

It is quite possible to construct arguments in support of Christian teaching that are both locally valid and true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on universal values - that is, values that can be found at the heart of any sound ethical system, such as the value and dignity of the person.

It is evident from the way the question is put that the term “logic” is not properly understood. Perhaps a more challenging question would have been: Is Christianity rational? This is an entirely different matter and one which seems to have inspired subsequent posts.

Actually, since logic is relative, nothing is logical. The atheist who is arguing just has decided that the only thing concrete is physical matters, when, the truth to the matter is, the only definite thing is God.

 

[ateista]

Again, the facts belie your “feelings” that humanity is becoming more helpful and moral.

The fact is governments (and almost solely atheist ones at that) have committed an array of atrocities in the past 90 years that make all the cruelties accumulated through human history pale in comparison. The facts below are not speaking of wars at all.

Wow, what a strange assertion. Has been refuted many times. Suffice it to say that there was a lot of horrible acts in the last century. To say that these acts were the result of “atheism” is huge pile of crock.

Yes, Stalin was an atheist, and he was a monster. So was Pol Pot and many others. (By the way, Hitler was not an atheist.) To claim that they were monsters because they were atheists, is a bit of stretch… if the whole book you quoting from is such a biased distortion of half-truths, you can safely throw it into the trash can. Or maybe burn it, so you can get some value out of it.

There is no denying specific benefits of science. What I objected to was the claim that science, on the whole has been of great benefit, i.e., the good not only outweighs the bad, but “greatly” outweighs it. That is debatable given the potentially lethal problems for humanity and the Earth that science through its many potent advances in technology, in the hands of human beings, has created.

Well, you cannot go back and directly experience the “good old times”. I certainly would not want to.

It is true that the results of science can be used and abused.

Just look at one fact: the life expectancy is a good, objective measure of how our lives improved due to science. And not just the length, but the quality, too. One hundred years ago the average life expectancy in the US was approximately 45 years. Today it is over 70 years. This is one expamle only. I could bring up pages and pages.