774 replies to this topic

[drus]

What we mean by the term 'God' must be defined. Are we talking in terms of - Existential Being? Anthropomorphic Deity/Being? Or something else entirely? Possibly knowable? Partially knowable? Or completely unknowable by current human understanding? It is my personal belief and experience that 'God' cannot be understood entirely by reason and science alone (and likely may never be knowable entirely by any one particular means) but must also be approached by existential experience and transcendent reason (aka faith arrived at by reason, feeling, experience, and wisdom). The subject of God is tricky and yet simple at the same time. It's like the subject of 'Love', we all have different definitions for it and experiences of it, and we all know it exists yet it can never really be proven to exist, but must be experienced to be understood. There is a certain amount of selfless-humble surrender and self-acknowledgment of one's own ignorance that is necessary when approaching the subject of God.

Edited by drus, 06 October 2011 - 01:15 PM.

[shadowhawk]

What we mean by the term 'God' must be defined. Are we talking in terms of - Existential Being? Anthropomorphic Deity/Being? Or something else entirely? Possibly knowable? Partially knowable? Or completely unknowable by current human understanding? It is my personal belief and experience that 'God' cannot be understood entirely by reason and science alone (and likely may never be knowable entirely by any one particular means) but must also be approached by existential experience and transcendent reason (aka faith arrived at by reason, feeling, experience, and wisdom). The subject of God is tricky and yet simple at the same time. It's like the subject of 'Love', we all have different definitions for it and experiences of it, and we all know it exists yet it can never really be proven to exist, but must be experienced to be understood. There is a certain amount of selfless-humble surrender and self-acknowledgment of one's own ignorance that is necessary when approaching the subject of God.

“General Revelation” deals with what we have been discussing, is there evidence of a God? The heavens declare the glory of god the Bible says. But, if they do, which God? I grew up raised an atheist. My atheist parents worked on me and were shocked when I became a Christian. I would go out at night, look up at the stars and general revelation would hit me, Why is there something? God???

Once we say “God,” we have only started asking questions. By just looking at the cosmos we don’t get enough information. “Special revolution,” is needed to fill in the blanks of information. The cosmos is so vast and great that it exceeds our minds and abilities. Unless God plays a part in making itself known we are left agnostic as to its nature. We are so limited and only fool ourselves that we have advanced so far that we can answer all the questions ourselves. So, look around and see if God or the reason for things, invades our little part of reality and God is made known. Indeed God must be defined, but by us or by God?

[platypus]

No God is theoretically and practically possible. Think about it.

Would you mind supporting this? I've thought about it but it seems possible, even likely.

All religions can be explained by psychology, psychiatry and natural religious experiences. Gods are not needed to explain anything that can be experienced. the origin of the universe is left open as a question but I don't think that warrants beliefs i personal gods.

[shadowhawk]

No God is theoretically and practically possible. Think about it.

Would you mind supporting this? I've thought about it but it seems possible, even likely.

All religions can be explained by psychology, psychiatry and natural religious experiences. Gods are not needed to explain anything that can be experienced. the origin of the universe is left open as a question but I don't think that warrants beliefs i personal gods.

This seems like a complete overstatement. How do you explain "experience"? Does the term "universe" you use include everything or are some things such as thoughts, ideas, experiences, and ideas outside the universe. How does psychology explain an answer on the origin of the universe? What is your answer?

[corb]

The Creator was created by the Father creator and the Grandfather creator and the great great great GREAT creator to the infinity.

It's funny that a lot of people got offended by this but it holds a lot of truth and logic.
If we were created by someone - and yes it would be a someONE, you cannot create if you lack a personality, a computer cannot create it can only copy and iterate - then who created him ?
And if we are indeed someone's creations then can someone give me a valid reason, why I am not god, as in why are you not all the creations of my mind ?

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that we might be a rare accident ? I think it's the lack of purpose. Most people like to think they or their children are destined to do great things, that is universally true for fanatically religious people most of them think they are CHOSEN to do whatever.That is way more egocentric than any other world view and as such clashes with what is written in the so called holy books, because all of them teach that the ego should come last.

And let's think about something else, if evolution is widespread and the universe has a preference for matter to get progressively more complex is it possible we might evolve into gods some day ? Is it possible that evolution IS the reason we were created, is it possible this is some kind of cycle in which beings gradually become more powerful and in the end of their development they are so explosive and unstable bundles of pure energy their thoughts alone can destroy and recreate the universe ? If that is true then, yes god might as well be or has been real.

What I don't understand is, why people think this is in any way better than any other theory. Do you really want your existence to be in the hands of something else ? Epicurus proved with simple logic thousands of years ago that even if a creator existed he is either not a GOD or he is malicious or impartial to our existence.

I can go on for hours speculating and coming up with theories and ideas about this but the truth is... It doesn't really matter at the moment. It might matter in a billion years. But it doesn't matter now. Let's concentrate on the problem at hand, getting lifespans that can allow us to get to places beyond our own world so we can finally get a glimpse of what the universe actually is, calculations and theories aside.

[shadowhawk]

If you missed Richard Dawkins on Bill O’Rilley you may still wonder why he won’t debate William Craig. It is so obvious.

[NeuroGuy]

The Creator was created by the Father creator and the Grandfather creator and the great great great GREAT creator to the infinity.

It's funny that a lot of people got offended by this but it holds a lot of truth and logic.
If we were created by someone - and yes it would be a someONE, you cannot create if you lack a personality, a computer cannot create it can only copy and iterate - then who created him ?
And if we are indeed someone's creations then can someone give me a valid reason, why I am not god, as in why are you not all the creations of my mind ?

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that we might be a rare accident ? I think it's the lack of purpose. Most people like to think they or their children are destined to do great things, that is universally true for fanatically religious people most of them think they are CHOSEN to do whatever.That is way more egocentric than any other world view and as such clashes with what is written in the so called holy books, because all of them teach that the ego should come last.

And let's think about something else, if evolution is widespread and the universe has a preference for matter to get progressively more complex is it possible we might evolve into gods some day ? Is it possible that evolution IS the reason we were created, is it possible this is some kind of cycle in which beings gradually become more powerful and in the end of their development they are so explosive and unstable bundles of pure energy their thoughts alone can destroy and recreate the universe ? If that is true then, yes god might as well be or has been real.

What I don't understand is, why people think this is in any way better than any other theory. Do you really want your existence to be in the hands of something else ? Epicurus proved with simple logic thousands of years ago that even if a creator existed he is either not a GOD or he is malicious or impartial to our existence.

I can go on for hours speculating and coming up with theories and ideas about this but the truth is... It doesn't really matter at the moment. It might matter in a billion years. But it doesn't matter now. Let's concentrate on the problem at hand, getting lifespans that can allow us to get to places beyond our own world so we can finally get a glimpse of what the universe actually is, calculations and theories aside.

Did you get a chance to read my post on the third page? I answered your first question there. What you just described is infinite regress, which is logically impossible. Essentially the only way anything can exist is if there exists a necessary being, meaning something that exists on its own, without dependence on any other being. This is how God can exist. It doesn't necessarily prove God's existence, but supports its possibility.

Also, I would be willing to accept the fact that we are a rare accident, if the evidence supported that conclusion. However, the evidence is not nearly so conclusive. In fact, the majority of arguments support the existence of God, rather than chance. A lack of purpose is certainly a good explanation for why many people choose to believe in God. However, the reasoning behind a person's choice of belief, or even the mental condition of a person, has zero impact on the validity of the belief itself. For example, if a schizophrenic chose to believe the law of gravity, should everyone else assume it's alright to leap off buildings?

You mentioned that Epicurus "proved" that if a creator exists he is either not a God or is malicious or impartial to our existence. I vaguely remember this argument having something to do with sin and evil, but if you wouldn't mind describing this proof, I would love to critically discuss it.

Also, this discussion absolutely matters now. For the vast majority of people living on earth, including yourself, there exists a very good chance that you will not live long enough to experience material immortality, or if you do, still die by some stellar catastrophe. I say chance because it is possible that you will make it, and by your logic, live until the end of the universe (or who knows how long). However, for those that do not make it, they have to deal with the very real consequence of death and its implications.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 12 October 2011 - 03:24 PM.

[NeuroGuy]

No God is theoretically and practically possible. Think about it.

Would you mind supporting this? I've thought about it but it seems possible, even likely.

All religions can be explained by psychology, psychiatry and natural religious experiences. Gods are not needed to explain anything that can be experienced. the origin of the universe is left open as a question but I don't think that warrants beliefs i personal gods.

You are absolutely right in that psychology and psychiatry can offer an explanation for natural, mechanistic religious experiences. In fact, cultural anthropology can explain all the basic needs that religion provides for society. However, these explanations do not refute the existence of God.

Let me clarify what I mean. To say that all experiences of religion were simply euphoria produced by a dopamine rush, or that what people have perceived as divine was the result of some hallucinogen, does not mean that a creator of the universe does not exist. That conclusion simply does not follow from the preceding premises.

However, even with the explanations provided by psychology and psychiatry, there are arguments that are left undefeated that do come to the conclusion of a moral, intelligent, omnipotent God. These are the moral, teleological, and cosmological arguments, respectively. I'm going to elaborate on these in another post soon.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 12 October 2011 - 03:30 PM.

[corb]

infinite regress, which is logically impossible.

I can't see the logic behind your reasoning, how can you be sure it is not possible when you have not seen the beginning or the end of time (if time is finite of course, but if it IS infinite it proves you wrong) ? We don't know enough about the universe at this moment to make definite assumptions like that. I can't say with absolute certainty a creator does not exist because there is not enough data to confirm or discard his existence, but the same can be said about a lot of the creation theories.

What CAN be said with certainty is that Christianity and all other religions are without a doubt bogus and their texts are written by random fanatics. The first problem is - the gods promise different gifts for abiding to different rules and different ways of life. Two problems with that : why would a god want to give you a gift ? He already gave you life right ? So he's so weak he can only make you do his bidding by bribing you ?
Second - if there was a single god why would he give you conflicting orders ? He wants you to fight each other and die for him ? And you want to worship this ... god ? Of course there could be more than one god ? But doesn't that conflict with most of the holy texts again ?
And there are loads more inconsistencies. There's enough written about that on the net, read up.


This is what Epicurus wrote, quite brilliant for someone in his age I might add :
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
He was very smart about it - never said god did not exist, only used facts that can be proven empirically to denounce his omnipotence.

if the evidence supported that conclusion.

We don't have evidence, that's the problem. We neither have evidence that we originated from an intelligent design, nor can we prove with certainty the universe is just one big error in the nothingness. At this point all theories can hold truth. We're like bugs standing on a the edge of a door frame gawking at a vast garden and we already think we've seen and know everything, truth is our perspective is too shallow for us to be able to conclude anything.

However, for those that do not make it, they have to deal with the very real consequence of death and its implications.

I still don't see how this is relevant. Whether he exists or not doesn't give proof he would grant you eternal life in your death. In fact it wouldn't prove anything besides the fact that a creator exists. Period.

So yeah. He could potentially exist. Doesn't mean he loves you. Even if the bible says so.
Something else to think about - imagine he said he'd give you eternal life just to make you do his bidding. But he lied. How can you prove his promises are true if we some day deduct that the bible is real and god exists ? Return form the dead ?

[NeuroGuy]

I can't see the logic behind your reasoning, how can you be sure it is not possible when you have not seen the beginning or the end of time (if time is finite of course, but if it IS infinite it proves you wrong) ?

What CAN be said with certainty is that Christianity and all other religions are without a doubt bogus and their texts are written by random fanatics.

On the first part, the logic behind why infinite regress is impossible depends on second law of thermodynamics. On the second part, while many religions are simply false, at least for Christianity, the evidence has failed to disprove God in the Christian sense. I would really appreciate it if you could support your statement that the texts were written by random fanatics, as I have never seen evidence to support that idea.

See below for a detailed argument on why time is not infinite, and why Christianity is compatible with this concept:

• The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."
  
  • If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy was gone.
  • But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
• Because the universe had a beginning, it is not infinite in size.
  
  • It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size.
• All events have causes.
  
  • There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
    
    • We've already established that the universe cannot be infinitely old.
    • If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not.
    • If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
• Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.
  
  • A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
    
    • Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than, or equal to, itself.
  • Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
    
    • An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
    • Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
  • An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which is finite.
    
    • An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
  • An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.
    
    • Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.
    • This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.
• This uncaused cause is supernatural.
  
  • By supernatural, it is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.
  • This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.
• The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
  
  • God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
  • Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
  • This means that God is uncaused.
• Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.[1]

And there are loads more inconsistencies. There's enough written about that on the net, read up.

I have read up, diligently in fact, and I did so before I became a Christian. Simply put, the supposed inconsistencies are just not inconsistent, they are only portrayed in such a way to make people believe that these verses don't make sense. If you have specific inconsistencies you want to discuss, post them, and I'll do my best to evaluate it honestly and publicly.

On a similar note, while I haven’t seen any consistencies stand the test of scrutiny, what I have seen is an amazing amount of unity in the Bible. The fact that a book composed over the course of 1500+ years could harmonize philosophically and theologically so perfectly, cannot be mere coincidence, simply because the amount of insight required would have been beyond the authors. Add to this the amount of fulfilled prophecy concerning exact dates, and you have a significant amount of evidence to support the conclusion that Christianity is the one true "religion."

This is what Epicurus wrote, quite brilliant for someone in his age I might add :
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
He was very smart about it - never said god did not exist, only used facts that can be proven empirically to denounce his omnipotence.

While I agree that he picked his battle carefully, his argument can be refuted nonetheless. The biggest flaw Epicurus makes here is that he assumes that a benevolent God would oppose every evil in all circumstances. In some cases it would be reasonable to allow a lesser evil to exist, in order that a greater good might be achieved. Such a greater good could be free will, and in order for free will to exist, we would need to have the choice and ability to do evil.

Concerning free will, one might question why an omnipotent God wouldn't simply arrange the world so that man was biased to virtue, and freely chose what is right each and every time. This argument essentially argues that if God were omnipotent, he could manifest all possible worlds, including one where humans freely choose to do good. However, according to the libertarian view of freedom, if a person has genuine free will he will make a choice of his own volition, rather than God’s. Therefore, it is logically impossible for even an omnipotent God to manifest a world containing both genuine free will and no evil.

We don't have evidence, that's the problem. We neither have evidence that we originated from an intelligent design, nor can we prove with certainty the universe is just one big error in the nothingness.

There are two features of nature that are good examples of design, which, although not “indisputable,” raise the probability of a theistic God. Order is the first example, in that things in nature “act always or nearly always in the same way.” The second feature is value, in that the order of everything in nature tends to bring about results that are good.[2] Just as clocks and watches, which are created by intelligent design, result in a beneficial order, so too does the universe due to these two features.[3] Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the beneficial order of the universe resulted from intelligent design, which I believe provides strong evidence for a designer of the universe.

It is often argued that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. Even if evolution is true, there are three reasonable responses to this argument. The first is that a divine creation, essentially “from scratch,” provides just as good an explanation as the proposal of evolution.[4] However, if evolution is true, then it is equally possible that the evolutionary process was “guided,” thereby necessitating a Guide. Finally, a third response would be that, although the evolutionary mechanism is completely valid, an ultimate explanation would still be needed to explain how the evolutionary mechanism arose.[5]

You mention that we cannot prove with certainty the origin of the universe. Again, you are right. What we can do however is come to a degree of certainty regarding what belief to hold. From these and many other arguments, there is a very strong case for God, equal or exceeding that for the concept of no God. To not believe in God due to science is simply a false conclusion, since science not only fails to refute God, but in many ways supports the concept of God.

However, for those that do not make it, they have to deal with the very real consequence of death and its implications.

I still don't see how this is relevant. Whether he exists or not doesn't give proof he would grant you eternal life in your death. In fact it wouldn't prove anything besides the fact that a creator exists. Period.

Agreed. To say that God exists or does not exist is an end-game in itself. If he does exist however, then the God proposed by Christianity is made possible. Then the debate begins on whether Christianity is the one true religion or not, which is another topic.

So yeah. He could potentially exist. Doesn't mean he loves you. Even if the bible says so. file:///C:/Users/Briordan/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png
Something else to think about - imagine he said he'd give you eternal life just to make you do his bidding. But he lied. How can you prove his promises are true if we some day deduct that the bible is real and god exists ? Return form the dead ? file:///C:/Users/Briordan/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png

By your logic, if we deduct the Bible is real (and by real I mean true) then we know he will keep his promises, since that is what the Bible says, “a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (Titus 1:2, ESV).


If I missed something that you'd like me to talk about, I'll will go over it in the next post.


[1] Retrieved from http://carm.org/entr...-gods-existence

[2] C. Stephans Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith, 2^nd ed (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 78.

[3] Evans and Manis 2009, 79.

[4] Evans and Manis 2009, 82.

[5] Evans and Manis 2009, 83.

Edited by NeuroGuy, 13 October 2011 - 08:16 PM.

[platypus]

All religions can be explained by psychology, psychiatry and natural religious experiences. Gods are not needed to explain anything that can be experienced. the origin of the universe is left open as a question but I don't think that warrants beliefs i personal gods.

You are absolutely right in that psychology and psychiatry can offer an explanation for natural, mechanistic religious experiences. In fact, cultural anthropology can explain all the basic needs that religion provides for society. However, these explanations do not refute the existence of God.

I'm not interested in 'refuting' something that might well be practically or even theoretically irrefutable. It boils down to evidence, and I don't see much evidence for the existence of gods (actually, outside of personal anecdotes I see no evidence for them at all).

[platypus]

On the first part, the logic behind why infinite regress is impossible depends on second law of thermodynamics.

We cannot assume that the second law of thermodynamics holds outside the observable universe, or before it.

The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."

• If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy was gone.
• But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

Our universe may well have a beginning but that does not rule out the possibility that the big bang wa preceded by another universe.

Because the universe had a beginning, it is not infinite in size.

Yes, but see above.

All events have causes.

This is not even true in quantum mechanics, which is a remarkably powerful theory. It is clearly possible that your statement is incorrect, i.e. strict determinism is dead.

Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

Your conclusion is not valid since it's based on faulty premises. Same goes for the conclusion that followed.

The moral problem in Christianity is that the whole system seems to have been set up so that God will send billions of souls into hell, i.e. the outcome is of the worst possible kind for mankind. This is another discussion that should not be tackled in this thread.

[corb]

If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy was gone.
But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning

The only reason Heat death or the Big freeze hasn't happened yet (and that is what you're pointing to) is because we're not quite there yet. It will at some point.

What this proves though is nothing beyond the fact that the universe will perish one way or another.
But it started out pretty much from the same nothingness it's going to become, which still leaves quite a bit of possibility for an infinity to exist. The fact is we don't have any actual information on what caused the big bang, we have theories based on the laws of physics at this point most of them are possible. In fact the godly intervention one isn't contradictory to the infinity of time and infinite regress AT ALL because he would be a remnant from a time BEFORE our universe existed, possibly from a universe which perished or from far away universe which could still exist.

In fact the existence of god would be the biggest evidence towards supporting the infinity of time, most scientific theories lean towards the possibility of the big bang being some massive fluke which will not happen again, or will not repeat for a very very very very very long time.

Again even if a creator existed... it doesn't prove anything besides that.

free will

What if he was bored and wanted to look at cute animals (that would be us ) doing cruel things. What if god was 7 years old .

[shadowhawk]

Your conclusion is not valid since it's based on faulty premises. Same goes for the conclusion that followed.

The moral problem in Christianity is that the whole system seems to have been set up so that God will send billions of souls into hell, i.e. the outcome is of the worst possible kind for mankind. This is another discussion that should not be tackled in this thread.

I noticed you did not identify what the “false premises,” are. You have ignored the points which were made with no real rebuttal.

You either misunderstand or misstate Christianity on hell. God does not send anyone to hell but wants no one to go there. Heaven is to be close to God. There are a number of descriptions of Hell in the bible but for me the worst one is being away from God. You wouldn’t want God to force anyone to be with him, would you? Each person gets to chose. How is this a “Moral,” problem for Christianity?

Here is a more developed discussion on Hell by William Lane Craig in a debate on hell in case you want to relate to something substantual on the subject. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-EP6LVhYOc&feature=related

Edited by shadowhawk, 14 October 2011 - 06:30 PM.

[platypus]

Your conclusion is not valid since it's based on faulty premises. Same goes for the conclusion that followed.

The moral problem in Christianity is that the whole system seems to have been set up so that God will send billions of souls into hell, i.e. the outcome is of the worst possible kind for mankind. This is another discussion that should not be tackled in this thread.

I noticed you did not identify what the “false premises,” are. You have ignored the points which were made with no real rebuttal.

The 1st rebuttal was that even if the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds locally in this universe you cannot assume that it holds everywhere. Much weirder stuff is contemplated in physics/cosmology every day. The 2nd point is that the Big Bang could have well been preceded by a previous universe. These are the false premises that you've based your argument on.

You either misunderstand or misstate Christianity on hell. God does not send anyone to hell but wants no one to go there. Heaven is to be close to God. There are a number of descriptions of Hell in the bible but for me the worst one is being away from God. You wouldn’t want God to force anyone to be with him, would you? Each person gets to chose. How is this a “Moral,” problem for Christianity?

Intentions don't matter but outcomes do. The Christian God is supposedly omnipotent and he chooses to burn billions of souls in hell forever. That is an incredibly evil and also a very screwed up scheme. A loving & good God would never design such a sick system of torture. Can anyone name another religion where mankind would be on average worse off than under Christianity?

[drus]

To NeuroGuy and Shadowhawk, excellent posts! I am in agreement with both of you on this issue.

To Platypus, mankind isn't living under Christianity and never has. Yes, i can think of several other philosophies that would make the world worse off; the system we live under right now for starters, and pretty much any system that rejects basic Christian principles. Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

Edited by drus, 18 October 2011 - 03:02 PM.

[platypus]

To Platypus, mankind isn't living under Christianity and never has. Yes, i can think of several other philosophies that would make the world worse off; the system we live under right now for starters, and pretty much any system that rejects basic Christian principles. Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

Hold on, how is the current system where everyone has exactly one life with no painful aftereffects is "worse" than having billions of people tortured forever? Genocide is good?

[drus]

To Platypus, mankind isn't living under Christianity and never has. Yes, i can think of several other philosophies that would make the world worse off; the system we live under right now for starters, and pretty much any system that rejects basic Christian principles. Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

Hold on, how is the current system where everyone has exactly one life with no painful aftereffects is "worse" than having billions of people tortured forever? Genocide is good?

I'm not sure i understand what you're asking exactly? What are you talking about? With regards to your second sentence/question - No, genocide is not good.

[shadowhawk]

Your conclusion is not valid since it's based on faulty premises. Same goes for the conclusion that followed.

The moral problem in Christianity is that the whole system seems to have been set up so that God will send billions of souls into hell, i.e. the outcome is of the worst possible kind for mankind. This is another discussion that should not be tackled in this thread.

I noticed you did not identify what the “false premises,” are. You have ignored the points which were made with no real rebuttal.

The 1st rebuttal was that even if the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds locally in this universe you cannot assume that it holds everywhere. Much weirder stuff is contemplated in physics/cosmology every day. The 2nd point is that the Big Bang could have well been preceded by a previous universe. These are the false premises that you've based your argument on.

You either misunderstand or misstate Christianity on hell. God does not send anyone to hell but wants no one to go there. Heaven is to be close to God. There are a number of descriptions of Hell in the bible but for me the worst one is being away from God. You wouldn’t want God to force anyone to be with him, would you? Each person gets to chose. How is this a “Moral,” problem for Christianity?

Intentions don't matter but outcomes do. The Christian God is supposedly omnipotent and he chooses to burn billions of souls in hell forever. That is an incredibly evil and also a very screwed up scheme. A loving & good God would never design such a sick system of torture. Can anyone name another religion where mankind would be on average worse off than under Christianity?

Where is your evidence that thermodynamics only holds locally in this universe and there is something (universe?) besides. This universe is the only universe we have hard evidence of. “You cannot assume it (thermodynamics) holds everywhere,” you claim. But, you can assume it doesn’t? Your evidence you present, is weird stuff and ideas that exist? Agreed, but what does that have to do with our discussion? How and what does this rebut? What do we really know?

Six main observational results over the past century led most astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang. First, they found out that the universe is expanding—meaning that the separations between galaxies are becoming larger and larger. This led them to deduce that everything used to be extremely close together before some kind of explosion. Second, the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. A hot, dense, and expanding environment at the beginning could produce these nuclei in the abundance we observe today. Third, astronomers could actually observe the cosmic background radiation—the afterglow of the explosion—from every direction in the universe. This last evidence so conclusively confirmed the theory of the universe's beginning that Stephen Hawking said, "It is the discovery of the century, if not of all time." Add to these three scientific discoveries, the cycle itssecond law of thermodynamics, radioactive element abundances and the stellar life cycle itself and you have quite an overwhelming case for a cause and effect cosmos we know to exist. The premises presented are not false. These are not old arguments only a few Christians know. Where did you get that idea? We have a known cosmos that has a beginning, is not eternal and is caused.

Intentions are important and Christianity teaches that God wants all people to have life with Hin. We are free to chose this, or not. Outcomes are important. Heaven - with god, Hell - without God. God does not chose to turn us into robots but created us with a free will. I have shown you in my earlier post why your misrepresentation is wrong. I have always felt it important to accurately represent those I disagree with. I hope you can do this with Christianity. That choice is yours.

[platypus]

To Platypus, mankind isn't living under Christianity and never has. Yes, i can think of several other philosophies that would make the world worse off; the system we live under right now for starters, and pretty much any system that rejects basic Christian principles. Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

Hold on, how is the current system where everyone has exactly one life with no painful aftereffects is "worse" than having billions of people tortured forever? Genocide is good?

I'm not sure i understand what you're asking exactly? What are you talking about? With regards to your second sentence/question - No, genocide is not good.

I'm asking whether it would be "good" for humanity if Christianity were "true". It seems to me it would not be, and that it is difficult to find belief systems that would be worse for humanity. What could be worse than having billions of people tortured forever?

[platypus]

Where is your evidence that thermodynamics only holds locally in this universe and there is something (universe?) besides. This universe is the only universe we have hard evidence of. “You cannot assume it (thermodynamics) holds everywhere,” you claim. But, you can assume it doesn’t? Your evidence you present, is weird stuff and ideas that exist? Agreed, but what does that have to do with our discussion? How and what does this rebut? What do we really know?

Six main observational results over the past century led most astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang.

I have a degree in physics and I'm well aware of the evidence for the Big Bang. You should be aware of the theories for a multiverse in which our Big Bang is only local and was preceded by another universe before it. (For example Andrei Linde has been developing these theories for a long time, see his articles in Scientific American in the past 20 years). Therefore, you cannot assume that "the universe" began at "the Big Bang" and your chain of assumptions breaks down already at the beginning.

Intentions are important and Christianity teaches that God wants all people to have life with Hin. We are free to chose this, or not. Outcomes are important. Heaven - with god, Hell - without God. God does not chose to turn us into robots but created us with a free will. I have shown you in my earlier post why your misrepresentation is wrong. I have always felt it important to accurately represent those I disagree with. I hope you can do this with Christianity. That choice is yours.

So God should just let all people choose freely after death - he certainly has the power to do this as an omnipotent creature. Now, if he chooses to organize a hellish genocide and torture billions of unbelievers forever, he should be held accountable for his evil decisions. The Christian God chooses this genocide since he wants it to happen - claiming anything else is apologetic madness. Christians often want to let their deity to get away with murder or worse but this is not an option for people who care about the future of humanity.

Edited by platypus, 19 October 2011 - 10:14 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

There is no actual evidence of a god. We can rationalize, theorize, conceptualize, or whatever, but there is still no actual evidence. Faith in a god is a creation of man and a form of social control.

Fortunately, more and more people are freeing themselves from this. Unfortunately it isnt happening fast enough.

[drus]

To Platypus, mankind isn't living under Christianity and never has. Yes, i can think of several other philosophies that would make the world worse off; the system we live under right now for starters, and pretty much any system that rejects basic Christian principles. Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

Hold on, how is the current system where everyone has exactly one life with no painful aftereffects is "worse" than having billions of people tortured forever? Genocide is good?

I'm not sure i understand what you're asking exactly? What are you talking about? With regards to your second sentence/question - No, genocide is not good.

I'm asking whether it would be "good" for humanity if Christianity were "true". It seems to me it would not be, and that it is difficult to find belief systems that would be worse for humanity. What could be worse than having billions of people tortured forever?

What do you mean by "if Christianity were true"? I'm not understanding how you're associating Christianity with "billions of people tortured forever"? Where did Jesus ever say, condone, or teach that torturing people was okay or good? True Christianity is simply a way of life, a way of being; it's that simple, and nothing more. Anyone who says it's anything else other than this is either lying, or ignorant. The philosophy that Jesus of Nazareth taught was one of selfless love, compassion, and forgiveness. True Christianity is virtually indistinguishable from Buddhism as a life philosophy, and shares many aspects and characteristics of Jainism as well. I think your problem is that you don't understand what true Christianity is.

[platypus]

I'm asking whether it would be "good" for humanity if Christianity were "true". It seems to me it would not be, and that it is difficult to find belief systems that would be worse for humanity. What could be worse than having billions of people tortured forever?

What do you mean by "if Christianity were true"? I'm not understanding how you're associating Christianity with "billions of people tortured forever"?

So Hell is a heresy and does not exist? People are treated humanely and equitably in the afterlife without discrimination?

[shadowhawk]

Where is your evidence that thermodynamics only holds locally in this universe and there is something (universe?) besides. This universe is the only universe we have hard evidence of. “You cannot assume it (thermodynamics) holds everywhere,” you claim. But, you can assume it doesn’t? Your evidence you present, is weird stuff and ideas that exist? Agreed, but what does that have to do with our discussion? How and what does this rebut? What do we really know?

Six main observational results over the past century led most astronomers to become certain that the universe began with the big bang.

I have a degree in physics and I'm well aware of the evidence for the Big Bang. You should be aware of the theories for a multiverse in which our Big Bang is only local and was preceded by another universe before it. (For example Andrei Linde has been developing these theories for a long time, see his articles in Scientific American in the past 20 years). Therefore, you cannot assume that "the universe" began at "the Big Bang" and your chain of assumptions breaks down already at the beginning.

Good you understand the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. This puts a solid scientific foundation under the arguments which were presented by NeuroGuy. You are the one assuming the existence of the much less probably multi verse which if it does exist, does not invalidate the argument of NeuroGuy. Here are a couple of clips on this point.

Intentions are important and Christianity teaches that God wants all people to have life with Hin. We are free to chose this, or not. Outcomes are important. Heaven - with god, Hell - without God. God does not chose to turn us into robots but created us with a free will. I have shown you in my earlier post why your misrepresentation is wrong. I have always felt it important to accurately represent those I disagree with. I hope you can do this with Christianity. That choice is yours.

So God should just let all people choose freely after death - he certainly has the power to do this as an omnipotent creature. Now, if he chooses to organize a hellish genocide and torture billions of unbelievers forever, he should be held accountable for his evil decisions. The Christian God chooses this genocide since he wants it to happen - claiming anything else is apologetic madness. Christians often want to let their deity to get away with murder or worse but this is not an option for people who care about the future of humanity.

It is the nature of making choices that the consequences of the choice often are permeant. I can think of all kinds of examples. God did create now and tomorrow and asks you to chose now. You claim to know better and claim the best time would be tomorrow. Let us chose even after death would be the best way you clam. After all, God could do it and if he doesn’t He is worse than Hitler, a torturer of billions forever. You end up accusing a loving God of being evil. You have not described Christianity.

Christianity teaches a Loving God asks us to chose now because there is a good reason. If you wait to chose, until after you die, you have made a choice with consequences. You have made yourself God. Your advice to wait is hardly a word of care for humanity..

[shadowhawk]

There is no actual evidence of a god. We can rationalize, theorize, conceptualize, or whatever, but there is still no actual evidence. Faith in a god is a creation of man and a form of social control.

Fortunately, more and more people are freeing themselves from this. Unfortunately it isnt happening fast enough.

What kinds of evidence do you accept?

[drus]

I'm asking whether it would be "good" for humanity if Christianity were "true". It seems to me it would not be, and that it is difficult to find belief systems that would be worse for humanity. What could be worse than having billions of people tortured forever?

What do you mean by "if Christianity were true"? I'm not understanding how you're associating Christianity with "billions of people tortured forever"?

So Hell is a heresy and does not exist? People are treated humanely and equitably in the afterlife without discrimination?

I can't speak definitely on the nature of the afterlife, (or if one even exists), though i suspect one does, based on personal experience. Are you asking me if hell in the traditional Abrahamic-religious sense actually exists? My answer - I don't know. Are you saying (or asking if) a child rapist/murder will receive the same after-life experience (or karma) as Mother Theresa, for example? My answer - i don't know for sure, but i wouldn't bet on it. Does that make sense to you?! Can that be justified? Certainly not! Not by any sane rational person with even a basic sense of justice and empathy. My advice is one should not live a life of malevolence, iniquity, and selfishness and then expect everything to be hunky dory lol. That would be foolish. Then again, living a life of malevolence, iniquity, and selfishness is in itself an exercise in foolishness. Empathy and loss of the ego are the keys to understanding true Christianity. Then of course, there is the subject of Karma. Anyhow, i personally don't concern myself with such things as hell. The concept and subject (of hell) is entirely moot if you are living, (or trying your best to honestly live) a life like the one Jesus (and/or the Buddha) taught. Read the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, and the deeper teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; or the Dhammapada or Bagavad Gita are very good too. You're a physicist, correct? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, correct? I can't say for sure, but i suspect that law probably applies. 'As you think and do, it shall happen to you' is my personal philosophy, and a good one to live by. Don't get caught up in over analyzing or over intellectualizing what is actually very simple. Christianity is not about fire and brimstone.....Christianity is simply a way of life, that eventually becomes a state of being. Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is within each of us....perhaps hell is too. Simply look into your heart and make a choice, i think you'll find it's not a difficult one.

[platypus]

Good you understand the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. This puts a solid scientific foundation under the arguments which were presented by NeuroGuy. You are the one assuming the existence of the much less probably multi verse which if it does exist, does not invalidate the argument of NeuroGuy. Here are a couple of clips on this point.

I think it's much more probable that some quantum effects prevent singularities from existing - why would there be infinite quantities in existence? Therefore Big Bang started from a very very hot and dense state and not from a singularity with infinite density. Now why would it be "improbable" that something preceded our Big Bang?

[platypus]

Simply look into your heart and make a choice, i think you'll find it's not a difficult one.

Yes, I'm one of those people who completely naturally find that there are no gods and deities "inside them". It's clear that the religious stories are fables and fairytales, and this was always the case for me. There are loads of people like me around and it's patronizing to tell them to "look into their hearts" to find god. I think religious people should look in deeper and look behind the brainwashing and social conditioning behind their religious beliefs (then there's genetics too but that cannot be altered). People need to be good and live a good life without imaginary beings - this is self-evidently true.

..and as far as the Chrsitian fairytale goes, the Judeo-Christian God dos not need to torture billions forever. Be good & moral and don't support genocide and torture by anyone!

[drus]

Platypus, it was not my intention to be patronizing to you, i apologize if it came off that way, nor was it my intention to seem as though i'm preaching to you or spiritually advising you in any manner, i am not nor am i qualified. Do not mistake me for a 'religious person' or a 'bible thumper' either, because i am neither of those things. You are correct in your assertion about institutionalized religion being a form of mass control, and yes, the vast VAST majority of 'religious' people in this world are indeed brainwashed, i agree. (As an added side note, most, as in 99.9% of the people in the world today calling themselves 'Christian' are in fact not practicing true Christianity at all. Modern Christianity has become so diluted and so polluted, going back as far as Constantine infact, that it can hardly be called even remotely Christian at all. It's like the term 'Socialism' which has become so twisted and polluted in modern times that it can hardly be understood for what it truly is and has lost all of it's true meaning.) Anyhow, back to the point - the fact that you are still referring to Christianity as a 'fairytale', and using terms like 'imaginary beings', shows me that you likely still do not understand what Christianity is, and are probably just as brainwashed as the 'religious' people you condescend to. Gods and deities "inside them"? What are you talking about? If this is your response in reference to 'the Kingdom of God is within us', then you completely miss the meaning. Anyway, are you able to intelligently address the rest of my post aside from the 'look into your heart' part? You seemed to have ignored the rest. Again, God doesn't torture anyone. Why do you keep insisting this? You're correct, people need to be good and live a good and moral life, that is definitely the ideal and a step in the right direction. Where do you get your concepts of 'good' and 'moral' btw?

Edited by drus, 20 October 2011 - 02:48 PM.