Disproving God? part1

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucy_fur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Louemma said:
The Athestist can blame no one but themselves when they choose not to believe in God.That blame can not be laid on any one’s doorstep but the one who lives in disbelief, thinking that they exist for no reason at all.
The problem with this particular atheists that I see from her post is not only does she not believe in God,she makes it very clear that she don’t like God either.That is because she don’t know him and how do you show someone something they don’t believe exists but at the same time they don’t like what it is they think don’t exists.Pretty messed up,wouldn’t you say?
Also let me add that in the years of your study on Jesus,how do you feel comfortable with the fact you , instead of telling people like Lucy how to find a break through in her disbelief,you agree with an atheists by you yourself claiming that the Christian God is only a figment of one’s imagination?
Years and years of Bible and prizes won are only works,to place a stumbling block in the way to spreading the good news to a lost person and showing them the way to the Father by way of the son is the most important work that a child of God could do for the Father.
You claim to know Jesus but Jesus plainly says in John 14 that if you know him,you know the Father.Here you claim to know the Lord but yet you turn around and say something such as The Christian God is Imaginative and you say this in the defense of an Athestist:eek: And turn around and blame others for the reason the Athestist is in disbelief.
Click to expand...
Clearly one can see that this was typed hast fully in between the Turkey and dressing(lol)
There is a typo mistake in my above post…
"To place a stumbling block in the way of spreading the good news to a lost person is the most important work a child of God could do for the Father " Good grief:eek:

Clearly what I meant to say is, That for one to say" God Is a figment of the imagination is a stumbling block"
and the most important work for a child of God to do, is spreading the news of Jesus Christ to the unbelievers.🙂
 
Louemma said:
The Athestist can blame no one but themselves when they choose not to believe in God.That blame can not be laid on any one’s doorstep but the one who lives in disbelief, thinking that they exist for no reason at all.
Click to expand...
Why would I blame anyone for nonbelief? And I don’t think I have no reason for existence, that’s directly oppositional to my philosophy. I exist to better society (completely subjectively, of course).
The problem with this particular atheists that I see from her post is not only does she not believe in God,she makes it very clear that she don’t like God either.That is because she don’t know him and how do you show someone something they don’t believe exists but at the same time they don’t like what it is they think don’t exists.Pretty messed up,wouldn’t you say?
Click to expand...
I think what was being said is that the character of God is fictional, but to imagine the existence of such an entity is an unappealing proposition. You may equate this to assessing a novel or work of fiction. You know the character does not truly exist, but you may still not like him/her. The personal feelings of one towards a deity should not change whether or not they believe in its existence, only their choice of whether or not to deem the deity worthy of worship.
Also let me add that in the years of your study on Jesus,how do you feel comfortable with the fact you , instead of telling people like Lucy how to find a break through in her disbelief,you agree with an atheists by you yourself claiming that the Christian God is only a figment of one’s imagination?
Click to expand...
Obviously because they, like you, are simply sharing their personal opinion. Just because someone has come to a different conclusion than you doesn’t mean they should be uncomfortable in it. : ).
You claim to know Jesus but Jesus plainly says in John 14 that if you know him,you know the Father.Here you claim to know the Lord but yet you turn around and say something such as The Christian God is Imaginative and you say this in the defense of an Athestist:eek: And turn around and blame others for the reason the Athestist is in disbelief.
Click to expand...
They don’t necessarily claim to know Jesus, only to have studied theology extensively. They are not blaming others for the nonbelief of someone, but using that “blame” as a rhetorical device, to attempt to make you turn a critical eye to your own beliefs. It is a way of saying that maybe what you are posting in this thread is not helpful to the case you are attempting to present. And I’d tend to agree.

Hope I helped clarify.

PS. Just because the OPer was banned doesn’t mean we should stop discussing the ideas presented. Although I can’t say I’m surprised : ). Anyone know the specific reason for the ban?
 
lucy_fur said:
What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it.
Click to expand...
Hi lucyfur,

You might be misunderstanding a subtle matter here. Human beings were indeed created “perfect” in one sense, but they weren’t created with the intention that the perfection they had been created with, should remain an unchanging part of their nature. It is the designer who determines what sort of features to design, and whether or not certain features of that design are to be changeable. If a car could be designed that would generally be useable for fifty years, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the designer MUST choose to design cars that can be used for fifty years.
The Christians’ objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy.
Click to expand...
It is true that lots of Christians will say that a being must have freewill to be happy, but that that, in my opinion, is not very relevant to your argument. Human beings can take any view they wish, but human happiness is not necessarily God’s primary concern in the sort of creation He chose.
Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make any sense. How do human beings come to understand the concepts of good and evil without some ultimate STANDARD for goodness? How do we understand and choose between “several good options” unless we understand what “good” is?
 
Logos385 said:
Why would I blame anyone for nonbelief? And I don’t think I have no reason for existence, that’s directly oppositional to my philosophy. I exist to better society (completely subjectively, of course).
I think what was being said is that the character of God is fictional, but to imagine the existence of such an entity is an unappealing proposition. You may equate this to assessing a novel or work of fiction. You know the character does not truly exist, but you may still not like him/her. The personal feelings of one towards a deity should not change whether or not they believe in its existence, only their choice of whether or not to deem the deity worthy of worship.
Obviously because they, like you, are simply sharing their personal opinion. Just because someone has come to a different conclusion than you doesn’t mean they should be uncomfortable in it. : ).
They don’t necessarily claim to know Jesus, only to have studied theology extensively. They are not blaming others for the nonbelief of someone, but using that “blame” as a rhetorical device, to attempt to make you turn a critical eye to your own beliefs. It is a way of saying that maybe what you are posting in this thread is not helpful to the case you are attempting to present. And I’d tend to agree.

Hope I helped clarify.

PS. Just because the OPer was banned doesn’t mean we should stop discussing the ideas presented. Although I can’t say I’m surprised : ). Anyone know the specific reason for the ban?
Click to expand...
This post was not for you:D
 
Logos385 said:
Anyone know the specific reason for the ban?
Click to expand...
Forum rules prohibit the discussion of moderator action. The forum rules also give a long list of reasons why someone might be banned. You can draw your own conclusions.🙂

The topic itself is interesting without the OP. Let’s carry on!!

-Tina “Not discussing this point further” G 🙂
 
I_Seek_2 said:
Your comparison is human to food, human to TV. He comparing God to creation, in order for you comparison to be good God would have to be equal to Humans in some way, their needs perhaps, but since God has no needs, as he is perfect, there can be no comparison. My thoughts are that perfection itself interferes with free well. Does God have free will? If, so can he make mistakes; What is wrong with God making mistakes: 1. its how knowledge is gained 2. If he does make mistakes then he will do the human thing and try again, the human race has been highly successful with this formula.
Click to expand...
Now, he said that humans act in order to seek perfection and therefore perfection does not act. I was saying that this is not true because humans often act without any seeking towards perfection and gave two examples of humans acting but not towards perfection. God does have free will, but He has a perfected free will so He still cannot make mistakes.
If your perfect the way you are then why would you seek anything, need anything. The meaning of perfection, is that nothing is wrong with you, why would you do anything at all, you have no need to you are Perfect
Click to expand...
Do you have a need to write the post you just wrote? Just because there is not a need to do something does not mean there is not a desire to do it. Therefore the claim that perfection would not do anything because it does not need to is baseless.
 
Now, he said that humans act in order to seek perfection and therefore perfection does not act. I was saying that this is not true because humans often act without any seeking towards perfection and gave two examples of humans acting but not towards perfection. God does have free will, but He has a perfected free will so He still cannot make mistakes.

Do you have a need to write the post you just wrote? Just because there is not a need to do something does not mean there is not a desire to do it. Therefore the claim that perfection would not do anything because it does not need to is baseless.

The need or desire are interchangeable one indicates need the other indicates want. Both are unnessesary if you are perfect the way you are: you don’t need/ or want to do anything. Humans want to do things, why, because they are fun(usually). Hence a need for fun. You you need motivation to do something or you wouldn’t do it.

Also I’m confused about this “perfected free will” because of this God cannot make mistakes and humans can, then humans have more free will than God? This makes no seance. Again i ask what is wrong with making mistakes?
 
Mick Taylor, I’m completely with you until the end.
Mick_Taylor said:
This doesn’t make any sense. How do human beings come to understand the concepts of good and evil without some ultimate STANDARD for goodness? How do we understand and choose between “several good options” unless we understand what “good” is?
Click to expand...
An ultimate standard of goodness is in no way necessary to know what “good” is.

This is equivalent to saying there must be an ultimate standard of hairiness to understand what “hairiness” is.

A quality is judged through comparison, not to a maximum, but simply between two different levels. If one person has more hair than another, they are hairier. This requires no “ultimate” hairiness. This is the same with goodness. If, to you, someone is more “good” than another, then they are more good. Once again, not necessitating an ultimate good.
 
TinaG said:
Forum rules prohibit the discussion of moderator action. The forum rules also give a long list of reasons why someone might be banned. You can draw your own conclusions.🙂

The topic itself is interesting without the OP. Let’s carry on!!

-Tina “Not discussing this point further” G 🙂
Click to expand...
I see! Thank you very much, and I fully apologize for my discussion of moderator action, I had not realized that was forbidden. I’ll edit my former post to omit that rule break. My apologies.

EDIT: I did not realize I can’t edit my former post. Everyone, please disregard the postscript. Thanks : ).
 
Firstly, Louemma: Your post discussed “The Atheist” as a generalization. So I was responding to a generalization, that I believe was incorrect, that included me. If it wasn’t a generalization, I would appreciate elaboration. Thanks!

Now,
I_Seek_2 said:
If lets say it existed at one time as all energy what caused the big bang?
Click to expand...
This energy would be in a state of constant fluctuation. One of the said fluctuations would have caused the spacetime in which we exist. It’s deceptively simple.
 
Logos385 said:
Firstly, Louemma: Your post discussed “The Atheist” as a generalization. So I was responding to a generalization, that I believe was incorrect, that included me. If it wasn’t a generalization, I would appreciate elaboration. Thanks!

Now,

This energy would be in a state of constant fluctuation. One of the said fluctuations would have caused the spacetime in which we exist. It’s deceptively simple.
Click to expand...
Chaos you would say? Does this energy have conscience or is is just that energy as in electricity (as humans perceive it).
 
I_Seek_2 said:
Chaos you would say? Does this energy have conscience or is is just that energy as in electricity (as humans perceive it).
Click to expand...
No consciousness to speak of. Electricity is a useful way in which we can conceive of it, yes, but in reality it is, to me at least, unimaginable. And no, this energy is not equivalent to God : ).
 
spockrates said:
Logos:

I’m intrigued. What is a scientific pantheist?

🙂
Click to expand...
First of all, I bow down to your cleverness (your username). Best I’ve ever seen on any forum. :clapping:

Scientific Pantheism (as I understand it) is the belief that there is no God, but the Universe in itself is majestic and worthy of reverence, and that science is the gateway to discovering its secrets. I choose to go by this label instead of simple “Atheism” because Atheism makes no commentary on anything but the issue of God’s existence. This way, I specify my belief system and give a clue to my thoughts through the label I give my worldview. : ).

Hope it makes sense! Thanks for the query.
 
Logos385 said:
An ultimate standard of goodness is in no way necessary to know what “good” is.

This is equivalent to saying there must be an ultimate standard of hairiness to understand what “hairiness” is.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the need has never arisen to define an absolute standard of “hairiness” because it just isn’t important and for all practical purposes it’s always been sufficient to leave it as nothing more than a relative term that can easily be understood depending on the individual context in which it’s used.

If you want to classify morality as an equally trivial subject, that’s your opinion, but I’m afraid you face an uphill battle if you want to convince other people that this is the case.
 
Logos385 said:
First of all, I bow down to your cleverness (your username). Best I’ve ever seen on any forum. :clapping:

Scientific Pantheism (as I understand it) is the belief that there is no God, but the Universe in itself is majestic and worthy of reverence, and that science is the gateway to discovering its secrets. I choose to go by this label instead of simple “Atheism” because Atheism makes no commentary on anything but the issue of God’s existence. This way, I specify my belief system and give a clue to my thoughts through the label I give my worldview. : ).

Hope it makes sense! Thanks for the query.
Click to expand...
Interesting, I like it.

What are you thoughts on how we were created, meaning of life, how to live a good life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top