|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:09 am
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
D i v i n i t y Is absolutely KNOWING anything healthy? Is it bad to claim to absolutely know anything? (religion for example). For this simple example, let's assume that the God of the Holy Bible exists and that the Bible is inerrant and expresses absolute TRUTH. Now if you KNEW that Christianity was the way to go, wouldn't you want an atheist or someone from another religion to NOT place their absolute faith in their belief or lack thereof? If so, isn't it only fair that you also give space for doubt in your belief/lack of belief? In that case, isn't it better to assume a position where you accept that you may be wrong? I only say this because I know a lot of religious people who claim to KNOW that God/Christ exist because they have a personal relationship with him... Also, I notice that many people say they KNOW that God is just a false delusion. I agree and believe that God is a false delusion but I would never claim to absolutely know that God does not exist. Does anyone agree or disagree? Voice your opinions please :]
Quite true. If one holds a close-minded view that they s=are unwiling to change, that would make them as "bad" as the people they tend to call schizophrentic.
I don't quite understand the first section, though. If the bible is deemed ABSOLUTE truth, why do you want people not believing in it? And if it IS absolute truth, how would people even go about not believing?
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/posts/say/say_b3_p.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:20 pm
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
Melchior727 I am as sure there is no god as I am sure there are no square circles or that up is not down. You don't need physical evidence to prove everything, something that logically contradicts itself (and god does this at every turn) cannot exist. I don't think my position is absurd, you guys are expressing agnosticism. I don't claim to be an agnostic because I do honestly believe that no god(s) exist, but I suppose that I express agnosticism since I would believe in God if there were GOOD evidence for it. I don't think, at all, that god's existence is probable but I don't think it's absolutely impossible. I don't believe in square circles either, but I don't think any person on earth applies supernatural traits to any squares or circles. If god could SOMEHOW be a supernatural being that always existed, and created everything then that doesn't really make sense logically, but neither does "everything always existed" Now, maybe "everything always existed" DOES make sense but we are unable to comprehend it now. Is that possible? Now a theist might go "We simply don't comprehend God's traits right now." The thing is: no one really absolutely KNOWS how it all began. Some of us simply reject the idea of "God" because it's improbable and seems to be an idea created out of pure ignorance, but that doesn't make it impossible, does it? This is just my opinion; so anyone criticize my position of they want o.O srsly, I encourage it if you don't agree with me o.O
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/posts/say/say_b3_p.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:06 pm
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/posts/say/say_b1_p.gif) |
The question of whether existence had a beginning or not makes my head hurt, so I'm not even going to go there. stressed
However I think the god question is more easily solved. Agnosticism by the way is not the "I don't know" position but rather the "it's impossible know" position. I held this position before reading Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Give it a read, or at least the first part. He uses a very structured and logical argument. First he launches an all-out attack on agnosticism, then he demonstrates how theism and faith can both be reduced down to agnosticism.
Just to give an example argument; in order for something to exist, it has to have attributes, and by definition an attribute is something that implies limitations. This is uniformity of nature.
Now all the descriptions of God: omnipotence (powers without limits), omniscience (knowledge without limits), eternal (unchanging), etc, break this rule of nature. The argument here is that God is "supernatural" and since he is "beyond" nature he transcends the limits of nature. But if you look at these characteristics they are all negative or "non-attributes." In order for something to conceivably exist it has to have positive attributes that in turn imply limitations, if something is everything then in reality it's nothing.
God cannot do everything because that would have to include things that would undercut his omnipotence (i.e. can he create a rock he himself cannot lift?).
He can't be omniscient because that would contradict his omnipotence, if he knows he will do something in the future can he change his mind? If so he's not omniscient, if not he's not omnipotent (not to mention it would destroy free will, which makes morality in Christianity and the whole heaven-hell thing pointless).
He can't be omnibenevolent because that would remove the matter of choice and morality is dependent on choice. No one can really be good if they had no choice in the matter.
Everything that describes God is everything that reality as we know it is not. If you push the theist into the corner far enough he'll eventual submit into agnosticism ("we really can't know God's true nature, we're too stupid you see").
I know I didn't present the argument as well as Smith, but you get the idea. If something breaks the laws of logic it cannot even conceivably exist (try to imagine a square circle... it's impossible).
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:02 pm
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
Melchior727 The question of whether existence had a beginning or not makes my head hurt, so I'm not even going to go there. stressed However I think the god question is more easily solved. Agnosticism by the way is not the "I don't know" position but rather the "it's impossible know" position. I held this position before reading Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Give it a read, or at least the first part. He uses a very structured and logical argument. First he launches an all-out attack on agnosticism, then he demonstrates how theism and faith can both be reduced down to agnosticism. Just to give an example argument; in order for something to exist, it has to have attributes, and by definition an attribute is something that implies limitations. This is uniformity of nature. Now all the descriptions of God: omnipotence (powers without limits), omniscience (knowledge without limits), eternal (unchanging), etc, break this rule of nature. The argument here is that God is "supernatural" and since he is "beyond" nature he transcends the limits of nature. But if you look at these characteristics they are all negative or "non-attributes." In order for something to conceivably exist it has to have positive attributes that in turn imply limitations, if something is everything then in reality it's nothing. God cannot do everything because that would have to include things that would undercut his omnipotence (i.e. can he create a rock he himself cannot lift?). He can't be omniscient because that would contradict his omnipotence, if he knows he will do something in the future can he change his mind? If so he's not omniscient, if not he's not omnipotent (not to mention it would destroy free will, which makes morality in Christianity and the whole heaven-hell thing pointless). He can't be omnibenevolent because that would remove the matter of choice and morality is dependent on choice. No one can really be good if they had no choice in the matter. Everything that describes God is everything that reality as we know it is not. If you push the theist into the corner far enough he'll eventual submit into agnosticism ("we really can't know God's true nature, we're too stupid you see"). I know I didn't present the argument as well as Smith, but you get the idea. If something breaks the laws of logic it cannot even conceivably exist (try to imagine a square circle... it's impossible).
Yeah I like the arguments against God smile ESPECIALLY the omnipotence and omniscience one. It depends on someone's definition of "god". I mean one can define it as the Christian omnipotent AND omniscient god, but what if someone's definition of "God" was a simply a supreme being that created everything? I honestly do not believe in this but I'm just saying... what if God weren't all powerful, weren't all knowing and weren't benevolent. What if God didn't give a s**t? Well of course this still doesn't discredit a lot of attributes like God being eternal... I don't even understand the point in asserting God as an explanation to questions we can't answer. That's why I'm not a theist. What if God were not subject to how we perceive logic because God transcends logic? It sounds pretty absurd, I know Lol, but I'm just curious as to how someone would approach this question if asked. I'm expecting "What? Nothing can 'transcend' logic" but is there any other answer? smile
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/posts/say/say_b3_p.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/s.gif) |
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 6:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
![](//graphics.gaiaonline.com/images/template/s.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|