Divine Scripture is a phrase I will use to describe the belief that religious texts, and by extension Religion itself, is handed down from God or a messenger from God.

As you all will know, there exists many arguments against the existence of a God. My argument is thus; for these arguments to exist, there must be some kind of observable error in the religious texts. This begs a question. Most, if not all, religions believe in an infallible God, incapable of making mistakes. Also, most, if not all, religions believe that the text from which they worship is handed down from God. If these things are true, why are there perceptible errors in religion?

This, in my eyes, is a valid argument for religion being an entirely human creation, developed in the absence of any God to explain phenomena that knowledge at the time could not.

Because the guy upstair works in mysterious way and want to test humandkind and their faith...

(January 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm)tobie Wrote: This begs a question. Most, if not all, religions believe in an infallible God, incapable of making mistakes.

A god incapable of making mistakes could not, by definition, be omnipotent.

Sorry, just occurred to me

Tobie, my young friend, allow me to introduce you to Celsus, who in the 2d century took a look at xtian horseshit and came up with this:

Quote:"God does not inflict correction on the world as if he were some unskilled laborer who is incapable of building something properly the first time around; God has no need to purify what he has built by means of a flood or a conflagration (as they teach)."

If it were possible to embarrass xtians, ( it is not, they are too dense) the idea that a so-called "pagan" had a more exalted view of god than they did should have done the trick.

Welcome.

(January 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(January 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm)tobie Wrote: This begs a question. Most, if not all, religions believe in an infallible God, incapable of making mistakes.

A god incapable of making mistakes could not, by definition, be omnipotent.

Sorry, just occurred to me

A prime example of one of the arguments

(January 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm)tobie Wrote:

(January 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(January 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm)tobie Wrote: This begs a question. Most, if not all, religions believe in an infallible God, incapable of making mistakes.

A god incapable of making mistakes could not, by definition, be omnipotent.

Sorry, just occurred to me

A prime example of one of the arguments

And on the other hand, an omniscient god (i.e. one with perfect knowledge) would seem incapable of making a mistake.

No theist I have ever talked to about this issue sees a paradox here, naturally.

(January 2, 2012 at 7:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Tobie, my young friend, allow me to introduce you to Celsus, who in the 2d century took a look at xtian horseshit and came up with this:

Quote:"God does not inflict correction on the world as if he were some unskilled laborer who is incapable of building something properly the first time around; God has no need to purify what he has built by means of a flood or a conflagration (as they teach)."

If it were possible to embarrass xtians, ( it is not, they are too dense) the idea that a so-called "pagan" had a more exalted view of god than they did should have done the trick.

Welcome.

This quote from Celsus is as flawed as most christian views of god. By saying that there is no need to purify the human race implies it is perfect. If the human race, or as a matter of fact, anything in the universe was perfect, why would there be so much misery?

(January 2, 2012 at 7:42 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(January 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm)tobie Wrote:

(January 2, 2012 at 7:35 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(January 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm)tobie Wrote: This begs a question. Most, if not all, religions believe in an infallible God, incapable of making mistakes.

A god incapable of making mistakes could not, by definition, be omnipotent.

Sorry, just occurred to me

A prime example of one of the arguments

And on the other hand, an omniscient god (i.e. one with perfect knowledge) would seem incapable of making a mistake.

No theist I have ever talked to about this issue sees a paradox here, naturally.

Usually by here you have gone two steps over the typical Christians head. They start ignoring it because it doesnt look good.


Of course it doesnt look good. Its a proof that this concept of God isnt real, but fictional.

Celsus was a Neo-Platonist who died in the late 2d century. He has an excuse....unlike our modern xtian morons.