Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Apr 5, '11 at 11:58pm

driejen

driejen

427 posts

Well, there are conditions for God, nonetheless, such as evolution.  But this doesn't disprove proving a negative (HAHA!!!) - you still can do it using reductio ad absurdum and others.

I wish, I really wish that reductio as absurdum works for everyone, but some of them are really difficult to handle. Like I said, they will cling to whatever unlikely, baseless loophole they can imagine. Some peoples beliefs is just one big ad-hoc hypothesis, for each time you try to prove them wrong, their belief system just gets more complicated. Fossils? They were planted by the devil. That part of the bible was metaphorical. God is above logic! The like...

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 12:03am

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

I wish, I really wish that reductio as absurdum works for everyone, but some of them are really difficult to handle. Like I said, they will cling to whatever unlikely, baseless loophole they can imagine. Some peoples beliefs is just one big ad-hoc hypothesis, for each time you try to prove them wrong, their belief system just gets more complicated. Fossils? They were planted by the devil. That part of the bible was metaphorical. God is above logic! The like...

And with each metamorphism of faith, we realize more and more the fanaticism and irrationality that goes into believing it.  It strengthens the reductio if they have to do that!

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 12:11am

driejen

driejen

427 posts

And with each metamorphism of faith, we realize more and more the fanaticism and irrationality that goes into believing it.  It strengthens the reductio if they have to do that!

I think outsiders to such beliefs would already see how irrational they are without endless discussion, but to the people believing them some just can't see it, I wish they would just step back and realise how much they have had to warp their beliefs and/or reality to make them fit together. Its like we can try to disprove all we want but it would never end, its up to them to step back and reflect.

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 1:27am

MRWalker82

MRWalker82

3,869 posts

Moderator

We're probably misaligned in what either of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" mean. Please define these. Are these intentions, inclinations or actions?

True homosexuality is the subconscious physical attraction toward members of the same sex. Heterosexuality is the subconscious physical attraction to members of the opposite sex. Again, our attraction is not a physical choice. We do not will ourselves to find something or someone beautiful or attractive, we simply do.

Certainly acting on these desires IS a choice, one that we can decide not to make. However if making such a choice based on a desire which is innate can only be described as natural.

If God created the world, and all that is natural, then he created homosexuality. If he is perfect then he would not (I would contend) create something which he loathes, or that would condemn that which he loves (us) to eternal punishment simply by it's introduction.

If he did not create the natural world then he has no say in it, and if he did, but loathes his creation then I would contend that he is not anything worth worshiping

I'm speaking of God thus indeed referring to the Bible,

Right, well then let's work it this way. When we make a claim you require we support it with verifiable evidence. I would ask that you do the same. And by verifiable I mean that it must subject itself to the same criteria which you require of our sources. Peer review, independent study, rigorous testing, and so on.

If your claims aren't supported by this then they are merely your opinion, just as any counter claims would be from us if we do not provide evidence to support them. Or we can sit here and debate on opinion and speculation, which I'm really quite bored with. It's worse than debating politics.

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 1:54am

vesperbot

vesperbot

986 posts

Vesper, being a christian may not be your choice but engaging in religious activities is.

Wrong analogy. Becoming a christian (being baptized) is sometimes indeed not our choice, but our parents' one, but turning your heart to God, thus becoming an active Christian, is a personal choice. Therefore your "BS" argument is based on a false assumption.

Besides, how the hell is my activites any concern of yours.

I'm not looking or willing to look under your blanket, I'm just stating homosexual actions as sinful, basing on the Bible. You reject these arguments, so I don't need to care more of you and your kin - I just warn. I think that in your life I won't be the only one who will warn you of this being sinful, but I will also pray for your salvation, as this is the best thing I can do.

Speak on our level (logic, reason, proof) if you want to convince us of anything.

I have tried, if you look 60 pages back in this topic, but I have found that God can't be either proven or disproven by binary logic, thus making any attempt of talking on this level fruitless. You can still object this.

"1 in a ?!?!?!" would be better and I honestly do not want to follow and focus on that too much.

okay, 2.49e-23 is 1 in 4e+22, that's 1 in 40 sextillions that you'll catch a meteorite within 10 next seconds. 3.55e-4516 is 1 in 2.8e+4515 (too high for a reasonable name) for Fatima's miracle to be a pure coincidence.

So what about the people who've never heard the name Jesus, the word creation or the meaning of faith?

This we don't know. However God said "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, `We see,' your guilt remains" Jn 9:41. This also means that those who have never seen the light are "blind" in this context, so they don't have sins against the Lord. They, however, have their own conscience, and if it blames them of something bad they have done, and they don't repent on this (to their own conscience), they might end up in Hell. Otherwise their destiny is yet unknown, our teaching does say they can still be saved by God's mercy.

But I think the point is what seems the most logical?

No, there are either logical on non-logical things in the world of logic. Once probability is added, you can only state something with a certain probability, which in fact never reaches zero or one, since some of the initial assumptions have probability to be true. You can, however, measure these conclusions by probability, but this won't make some "more logical" than other, only "more probable".

and have to pay for our sins which we didn't do fully consciously?

See, there are two categories of sin. "Mortal" sin, if commintted and not repented, leads you to Hell. But in order for you to commit a mortal sin, you have to be aware of the deed you're about to do is sin, this deed concerns "hard matter" (direct deed against any of the commandments) and you have to do a free choice to commit that deed despite it being a sin. By "free choice" I mean that if you are forced to do something that's a mortal sin by someone else, your personal guilt is either eliminated or greatly reduced, up to the point of this sin not being mortal for you. There are also "common", non-mortal sins, that don't lead you directly to Hell if unrepented. So in case of you being unaware that something you did was a sin, this deed will not make you end up in Hell.

And don't tell me that god is telling some persons what is right and what is wrong

I'm speaking of conscience, this is a means for God to contact us and tell us what is right and what is wrong.

How is it our fault for sinning if we were made to be faulty?

Read above for mortal sin. And, being imperfect does not mean that we are being faulty, it only means that we CAN fail, not that we MUST fail. Yes, sometimes we can choose wrong, but there are means for God to tell us we did wrong so we will return to doing right.

how could an angel make a bad decision if they were made perfect?

I have no answer on this.

So it really doesn't matter if I believe in God or not or even what sins I commit so long as I have someone going or in Heaven who will prayer for me to get in?

Why, it does matter. If you repeatedly avoid any invitations, you won't enter Heaven. A prayer, even of a saint in Heaven, is a request for God to give you chances to convert, and it's up to God to choose the form of this invitation. He can indeed visit you as He did with Apostle Paul, or He can send you a vision of your sins you have already done, what harm did their consequences cause in the world and other stuff, in an attempt to convince you to throw your sinful habits (if any - I'm not to say you have any right now) away and turn your face and heart to Him. Most often He sends some smaller events to help a sinner to convert.

So God intended for us to sin?

Yes I think. Children can make mistakes, and sin is a classification of a mistake here. God sees us as His children (at least those who were baptized thus being embraced by Christ) and cares for us in a manner exceeding any that a mortal father could care for his children. But while we're yet here, we have a choice open to repent for our sins, or in terms of a child and father, ask forgiveness for his mistakes and promise he won't commit them further, and He as a loving father will pardon us.

put the temptation in the way

Placing a forbidden object is not equal to placing a temptation to use it.

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 2:26am

Einfach

Einfach

1,433 posts

I have tried, if you look 60 pages back in this topic, but I have found that God can't be either proven or disproven by binary logic, thus making any attempt of talking on this level fruitless. You can still object this.

I have - because God belongs to the set {things that either exist or don't exist}, then there are conditions that apply for existence.  For example, God can't create contradictions in the universe, because that implies that God doesn't exist (a contradiction implies anything).

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 2:52am

Highfire

Highfire

2,936 posts

But if you don't try you can't win.

If you just been quiet and done it yourself with pride you can always win.
You know, I'm not getting my older brother to help me pull this shelf when I can put it on wheels first.

Whenever I hear of someone who says they got what they prayed for, all I have to do is look around and see all those who didn't.

The fact that they mentioned it shows that it's rare in itself. :)

But I'm sure that you would place God in the set "that which exists", which is a set that logic DOES apply to.

Plus you should add that even if it's contradiction it is only contradiction to our current knowledge. Logic could and probably would still apply.

Unfortunately for me, it seems Vesper is active when i'm asleep, so this thread keeps jumping 3-4 pages every night for me.

Same, as you can see in this post, I've probably checked the last 3 pages.

Or we can sit here and debate on opinion and speculation, which I'm really quite bored with. It's worse than debating politics.

Awwww hell no!
Sad thing is I wanna do politics. Why? To make a bloody change lol, I don't wanna do game design or something like that because that is not constructive (however creative) to the proper needs. I do wish I could do it but my GCSE's are also pointed towards politics.

- H

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 2:55am

vesperbot

vesperbot

986 posts

Study on the effects of prayer...

You cannot command God to do something, that's why such studies are deemed to fail.

Unfortunately for me, it seems Vesper is active when i'm asleep, so this thread keeps jumping 3-4 pages every night for me.

Yes, I live by GMT+4, and all of America lives by GMT-5 to GMT-8, thus being fast asleep by the time I wake up and start replying.

But I'm sure that you would place God in the set "that which exists", which is a set that logic DOES apply to.

He is in there, yes. But this set is divided into material and spiritual, the former is applicable, the latter is not. Emotions are immaterial, and you can observe them being at least irrational, I claim them being illogical just because you can't determine what emotion will be caused in yourself if you do something. Women's emotions are the best approximation of entirely indeterministic state, which cannot be described by logic, this means logic can't apply to something that exists. (I sense there are flaws in this argument, though can't determine them)

True homosexuality is the subconscious physical attraction toward members of the same sex. Heterosexuality is the subconscious physical attraction to members of the opposite sex

Okay, while these being attractions, they are not sins, only actions are sins.

Certainly acting on these desires IS a choice, one that we can decide not to make. However if making such a choice based on a desire which is innate can only be described as natural.

I'd like to use reductio ad absurdum here. Pooping is natural, everyone must do this once in a while, but mere speaking about this offends people, let alone acting. But the difference is that you MUST poop once in a while, but you may avoid committing self to homosecual actions. You can't avoid being homo-inclined, this is true if you are, but still in order to sin you have to choose.

If God created the world, and all that is natural, then he created homosexuality. If he is perfect then he would not (I would contend) create something which he loathes, or that would condemn that which he loves (us) to eternal punishment simply by it's introduction.

There's a verse in Psalms stating this, indeed. But introducing a thing is not introducing the desire to do something with that thing, like introducing the tree of knowledge in paradise is not the same as introducing the desire of eating its fruits. So introducing homosexuality as an attraction is not the same as intoducing homosexual action as a thing to do with it.

Right, well then let's work it this way.

Okay, please wait for Einfach and me on the question on whether one can prove or disprove God by binary logic. If there will be a conclusion that we can't do neither, this would mean that one cannot present scientifically verifiable facts about God existing or God nonexisting, thus making ANY future logical debates on this matter futile. This will not, however, invalidate any debates on whether some action is a sin or not, since then they will be backed by a shared belief in God and His commandments. Otherwise there will be a possibility of either positive or negative answer on God existing, which will then be INFALLIBLE. How's that a perspective?

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 3:09am

Highfire

Highfire

2,936 posts

Sorry for double post.

Wrong analogy. Becoming a christian (being baptized) is sometimes indeed not our choice, but our parents' one, but turning your heart to God, thus becoming an active Christian, is a personal choice. Therefore your "BS" argument is based on a false assumption.

That argument is BS and I have to REPEAT myself. Oorah.
In childhood kids are open to any lie possible, if they are told something, they nearly undoubtedly believe it in one form or another. Being born into Christianity or another religion is a way of life, and it is froze into their beliefs. It is barely a personal choice and it is barely free will or fair.

I just warn. I think that in your life I won't be the only one who will warn you of this being sinful, but I will also pray for your salvation, as this is the best thing I can do.

Don't do this for me. Because if God is real I want to challenge him. I know this mostly wasn't directed at me, but I honestly don't care.

okay, 2.49e-23 is 1 in 4e+22, that's 1 in 40 sextillions that you'll catch a meteorite within 10 next seconds. 3.55e-4516 is 1 in 2.8e+4515 (too high for a reasonable name) for Fatima's miracle to be a pure coincidence.

Okay, sorry if you provided a link but I'd like, also, who is Fatima again?

and if it blames them of something bad they have done, and they don't repent on this (to their own conscience), they might end up in Hell. Otherwise their destiny is yet unknown, our teaching does say they can still be saved by God's mercy.

That isn't mercy. People who sustain terrible acts can come out moral, just and honest but often it could turn out worse. The envirmental influence will be huge and I don't think they will care much for repentance or anything like that - yet again because of the human brain.

No, there are either logical on non-logical things in the world of logic. Once probability is added, you can only state something with a certain probability, which in fact never reaches zero or one, since some of the initial assumptions have probability to be true. You can, however, measure these conclusions by probability, but this won't make some "more logical" than other, only "more probable".

But there is not logic involved in Religion. It has not yet been proven, and you haven't backed up the claim (Fatima's metoerite prediction is the closest thing to evidence you seem to have). In this case, this really isn't a world of logic, and therefore probability probably isn't a matter. It still is, though, because even illogical things can be true - I definitely don't agree with it. But it still could be. And only when I straight up see God greet me to Hell I will actually believe in him.

I'm speaking of conscience, this is a means for God to contact us and tell us what is right and what is wrong.

People are scientifically proven to feel like helping others, "strength in numbers" or something. But conscience really doesn't equate to contact, that is not free choice. I can choose how I feel by merely being self aware but in that case he would be invading my emotions.

it only means that we CAN fail, not that we MUST fail. Yes, sometimes we can choose wrong, but there are means for God to tell us we did wrong so we will return to doing right.

Wrong for 2 reasons.
Firstly, aren't people who do wrong often doing something wrong to those whom would be right? God is letting those be punished because he made humans "faulty"?

Plus, he made humans faulty, therefore is the only one who can be blamed, I can't see how anger wouldn't come from a believer who knows God made them faulty. I don't like being compromised in any way. This counts.

I refuse to believe in this, I've already mentioned. But I only wish I could directly fend off these silly attacks God seems to make.
They are attacks if they're weakening me. Sure, he could put more effort in, and that's a positive, not a negative. But all-powerful. It shouldn't matter to him.

Why, it does matter. If you repeatedly avoid any invitations, you won't enter Heaven. A prayer, even of a saint in Heaven, is a request for God to give you chances to convert, and it's up to God to choose the form of this invitation. He can indeed visit you as He did with Apostle Paul, or He can send you a vision of your sins you have already done, what harm did their consequences cause in the world and other stuff, in an attempt to convince you to throw your sinful habits (if any - I'm not to say you have any right now) away and turn your face and heart to Him. Most often He sends some smaller events to help a sinner to convert.

God is supposedly all knowing. Meaning he should know what went on, why, and how, and be able to "judge" (God judging me makes me feel sick) people on that and their intentions. Even if they are wrong, God would be wrong to "condemn them", because often it may not be their fault.

Placing a forbidden object is not equal to placing a temptation to use it.

God is all-knowing, this argument for him is invalid.
Oh and he created man, apparently. Saying he did not place temptation there is like saying I bought a pair of socks to cover my hands from the cold.

- H

 

Posted Apr 6, '11 at 3:45am

PracticalManiac

PracticalManiac

301 posts

I'm just gunna jump in real quick. I have a question for vesper, I just want to know why you believe in god/religion? (I am not bashing by any means) But just wondering why would you push away logic and reasoning for faith? Are you scared of what lies after death?

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!