(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: The only thing that's changed about my concept of God since my second baptism is a blossoming of the flower. My understanding has grown, which is change. However down to it's roots it's the same concept of God any Christian I've spoken with agrees with. I'm not changing the rules to suit the discussion nor has my definitions changed, even over the course of me being here.

You are moving the goal posts during the game. Isn't that a convenient sentence in there: "any Christian I've spoken with" (underling by me). The underlined part makes it unverifiable for others.

Fact is that many christian believers take literal parts of the bible that you don't when it suits you. You are redefining god under our very eyes here. There is no definition given in advance we can evaulate it against.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: I've never said God is unevidenced in every aspect. God reveals himself, and I've seen the subjective evidence of personal experience.

Redefining terms here. Subjective evidence is no evidence since it cannot be shared. So moving a goal post there.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: Simply because you don't have any reason to believe and can't accept or understand the ideas and concepts put before you doesn't mean I'm playing any games, changing any definitions or not sincere in my belief.

I am not stating that my non-belief implies that you are playing games, that's just ridiculous.
I don't doubt your sincerity of belief, but belief requires an unevidenced disposition that pollutes the mind.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: Try addressing the points next time or at least staying on topic, I know you can. We've had decent conversations before.

Don't try that one on me again. The point I've made is so on subject because we need a stable definition up front of "God" and "superior being" to be able to address and evaluate it.

Don't shy away now, I leave open the possibility that you might one day be able to consistent and coherent formulation of these concepts even if you haven't done so before.

(July 3, 2010 at 1:53 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-I define time as webster does "the point or period when something occur".

So this earlier claim that "God's love will last so long as time exists" was just you being poetic? >.> Not trying to insinuate that was your argument but if you actually were figuratively-speaking and the statement was merely symbolic, you could have saved us a lot of time by clarifying that at the beginning.

tackattack Wrote:2- I would say when God ineracts with this universe, he is subject to the laws he reated in this universe. The miraculous may occur because of a lack of our understanding of the nature of this universe. I would say in the instant of his interaction he uses the established laws/axioms to instruct, guide and interact with us. For instance, when his actions interfered with this universe it would be marked at a certain time in a certain way, and thus for that instant would he be both in his nature and measurable within the confines of the universe. Just because you have power or control over a concept such as time, doesn't mean you can't use that concept.

If he is subject to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and so on, how can he possibly be their originator or first-cause? This isn't the same concept of the Christian God you were arguing for earlier on. Your religion does not assert God as some finite anthropomorphic entity who stumbled upon the universe and manipulated it until it resembled the current one we inhabit - it's quite specific on God as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the infinite immeasurable moves-in-mysterious-ways creator. Even I know of that concept, I just don't think its remotely real or has any foundation in reality.

tackattack Wrote:3-Why does everyone assert that I haven't read the Bible? I'm aware of revelations take on hell, which isn't supported by the other books, but we'll say I completely agree wih it 100%.
a)It says the second death is absolute oblivion though destruction in a lake of eternal fire. The torment is not eternal, the fire is. At loosest it's a metaphor for God's hatred of sin. The rest of the Bible's book that speak of the second death aren't focused on the lake, and are much more explicative as to even say oblivion. That's non-existence, not a forever amount of torture.

Not trying to be rude, but that's because you were demonstrating your inaccurate understanding of the holy text and scriptures.

And looking at the points made I'm disappointed you back-peddled to beliefs within Annihilationism, refuted by Biblical text, in a desperate bid to defend your God-concept's overbearing monstrosity.

Sin isn't a thing, it's a label used for immoral acts that go against God's will, as if he's 'moral', or fall short of his "perfection", hardly worth burning someone forever over, the tormentor being an evil ego-manic not withstanding. And you think he doesn't torment us for eternity, but destroys us instead for eternity. How delightful. Referring to the fire tetrahedron, there is no fire without fuel, without combustible material (sinners). If we, the object of God's temper-tantrum, are supposedly destroyed rather than tormented forever then how can God still be wrathful? What is the object of his wrath Tack?

tackattack Wrote:b) Again the point I'm making is in the immediate aftermath of death the Bible is ambiguous as to when and where you go, just that eventually a judgement day will come where you are either in the book or not and could be made to die a second time.

No sir, it is anything but vague on what happens to the unrepentant.

Answer the question: Do you think I've done anything that deserves me being forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent eternal second death in the Lake of Fire? Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just?

(July 4, 2010 at 3:10 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: The only thing that's changed about my concept of God since my second baptism is a blossoming of the flower. My understanding has grown, which is change. However down to it's roots it's the same concept of God any Christian I've spoken with agrees with. I'm not changing the rules to suit the discussion nor has my definitions changed, even over the course of me being here.

You are moving the goal posts during the game. Isn't that a convenient sentence in there: "any Christian I've spoken with" (underling by me). The underlined part makes it unverifiable for others.

Fact is that many christian believers take literal parts of the bible that you don't when it suits you. You are redefining god under our very eyes here. There is no definition given in advance we can evaulate it against.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: I've never said God is unevidenced in every aspect. God reveals himself, and I've seen the subjective evidence of personal experience.

Redefining terms here. Subjective evidence is no evidence since it cannot be shared. So moving a goal post there.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: Simply because you don't have any reason to believe and can't accept or understand the ideas and concepts put before you doesn't mean I'm playing any games, changing any definitions or not sincere in my belief.

I am not stating that my non-belief implies that you are playing games, that's just ridiculous.
I don't doubt your sincerity of belief, but belief requires an unevidenced disposition that pollutes the mind.

(July 4, 2010 at 1:41 am)tackattack Wrote: Try addressing the points next time or at least staying on topic, I know you can. We've had decent conversations before.

Don't try that one on me again. The point I've made is so on subject because we need a stable definition up front of "God" and "superior being" to be able to address and evaluate it.

Don't shy away now, I leave open the possibility that you might one day be able to consistent and coherent formulation of these concepts even if you haven't done so before.

---

1- All I have to go off of is what I've observed for myself. I think I defined God here fairly specifically. Do I think every Chrsitian will agree to at a minimum the cited? No, but I think it'd be a percentile in the nineties. I only assume that because no one's done the study and from my observations I've yet to meet any Christian in the disagreeing percentile. This definition hasn't changed since I've been a Christian and it is verifiable, go ask someone claiming to be a Christian. I'm not redefining, playing with words or moving any goal posts.

2-Regardless of how you feel about it, subjective evidence is evidence by it's very definition. My evidence may not be usefull to your truth, but truth is subjective for us I think. That doesn't mean you couldn't find similar evidence of your own; then, what seems like confirmation bias from your current perspective would be corroboration of subjective truth leading to a universal truth concept.

3- I have done so before and will continue to do it as long as I have the energy. I've also listed why I believe in God and my subjective evidence for him multiple times. It either kills the thread, gets into a semantics battle or gets derailed. So when asked and I have the energy I'm always happy to answer ny question.

(July 4, 2010 at 5:49 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

(July 3, 2010 at 1:53 am)tackattack Wrote: 1-I define time as webster does "the point or period when something occur".

So this earlier claim that "God's love will last so long as time exists" was just you being poetic? >.> Not trying to insinuate that was your argument but if you actually were figuratively-speaking and the statement was merely symbolic, you could have saved us a lot of time by clarifying that at the beginning.

tackattack Wrote:2- I would say when God ineracts with this universe, he is subject to the laws he reated in this universe. The miraculous may occur because of a lack of our understanding of the nature of this universe. I would say in the instant of his interaction he uses the established laws/axioms to instruct, guide and interact with us. For instance, when his actions interfered with this universe it would be marked at a certain time in a certain way, and thus for that instant would he be both in his nature and measurable within the confines of the universe. Just because you have power or control over a concept such as time, doesn't mean you can't use that concept.

If he is subject to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and so on, how can he possibly be their originator or first-cause? This isn't the same concept of the Christian God you were arguing for earlier on. Your religion does not assert God as some finite anthropomorphic entity who stumbled upon the universe and manipulated it until it resembled the current one we inhabit - it's quite specific on God as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the infinite immeasurable moves-in-mysterious-ways creator. Even I know of that concept, I just don't think its remotely real or has any foundation in reality.

tackattack Wrote:3-Why does everyone assert that I haven't read the Bible? I'm aware of revelations take on hell, which isn't supported by the other books, but we'll say I completely agree wih it 100%.
a)It says the second death is absolute oblivion though destruction in a lake of eternal fire. The torment is not eternal, the fire is. At loosest it's a metaphor for God's hatred of sin. The rest of the Bible's book that speak of the second death aren't focused on the lake, and are much more explicative as to even say oblivion. That's non-existence, not a forever amount of torture.

Not trying to be rude, but that's because you were demonstrating your inaccurate understanding of the holy text and scriptures.

And looking at the points made I'm disappointed you back-peddled to beliefs within Annihilationism, refuted by Biblical text, in a desperate bid to defend your God-concept's overbearing monstrosity.

Sin isn't a thing, it's a label used for immoral acts that go against God's will, as if he's 'moral', or fall short of his "perfection", hardly worth burning someone forever over, the tormentor being an evil ego-manic not withstanding. And you think he doesn't torment us for eternity, but destroys us instead for eternity. How delightful. Referring to the fire tetrahedron, there is no fire without fuel, without combustible material (sinners). If we, the object of God's temper-tantrum, are supposedly destroyed rather than tormented forever then how can God still be wrathful? What is the object of his wrath Tack?

tackattack Wrote:b) Again the point I'm making is in the immediate aftermath of death the Bible is ambiguous as to when and where you go, just that eventually a judgement day will come where you are either in the book or not and could be made to die a second time.

No sir, it is anything but vague on what happens to the unrepentant.

Answer the question: Do you think I've done anything that deserves me being forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent eternal second death in the Lake of Fire? Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just?

---

1- No it wasn't being poetic. Our perception of God's Love willl last as long as we can perceive time, simple as that. I wouldn't know how to wrap my head around how to percieve something like eing love without the ability to perceive.

2-I hate reusing old analogies but, can't the creator of the cuckoo clock claim creation over his work? When he has to reach inside and fix a gear is he not then confined to the constraints inside the clock when working on it? When he's done fixing it is he confined by the clock at all? It is the same concept I've been talking about all along. God is omnipotent in relation to the confines of our universe, only in that he wouldn't willfully destroy wholly what he's created not that he is lacking in power.

3- I didn't know I was back peddaling to Annihilationism, I thought I as talking aboutit the whole time. I don't feel Annihilationism is refuted by any scripture and I would say I'm a subscriber to that philosophy. Ultimately the wages of sin is death. Be it quick, painful, once or twice, oblivion I feel is an appropriate punishment. I don't see why if you expect nothing from death as an atheist and end up nothing there's such a big deal which was my overal point. I didn't say you were fuel for God's wrath as you have it. Firstly, I don't believe in eternal torment, but I do believe in hell as a place separate from God and built for the fallen. Secondly I think wrathfullnes isn't a trait I see in God so I don't attribute it as any more than man's personifications. Lastly, To answer your question, if God were wrathful the object of his wrath would be the sin, not his creation.

4-I'm not saying what happens on the day of judgment isn't clear on what happens to the unrepennant. It is clear on that. I don't assume that once we die it's immediately to the judgement. Judgement day, as you reference, is a set time in the future when Jesus comes to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I'm speaking about personally and in the now, the Bible is unclear, as to the specifics of exactly happens. If I'm wrong please site your references.

Answer to: Do you think I've done anything that deserves me being forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent eternal second death in the Lake of Fire?
Assuming you've :
a) lived a decent life, harmed few, kept a moral compass not depraved
b) refuse to acknowledge Jesus as your savior, despite being given the message
c) your second death wasn't eternal
Then biblically you've probably done enough for that.

ANswer to: Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just? No, but the fire of hell consumes to oblivion, therefore not eternal. While the fire may be eternal the torment isn't, I don't think I've gotten that across to you clearly yet.

(July 7, 2010 at 2:00 am)tackattack Wrote: I wouldn't know how to wrap my head around how to percieve something like eing love without the ability to perceive.

...come again?

tackattack Wrote:2-I hate reusing old analogies but, can't the creator of the cuckoo clock claim creation over his work?

I also hate analogies that borrow from the flawed Watchmaker Argument too, so let's not go down that road please.

tackattack Wrote:God is omnipotent in relation to the confines of our universe, only in that he wouldn't willfully destroy wholly what he's created not that he is lacking in power.

So... God is not omnipotent then? Or do you regard the universe as infinite? Again I really hate pressing you for question after question all the time but your statements lately are lacking any explanatory power and are becoming increasingly vague.

tackattack Wrote:3- I didn't know I was back peddaling to Annihilationism, I thought I as talking aboutit the whole time.

If you were arguing for Annihilationism this entire time then I apologise for not understanding your position earlier. Nevertheless I still find this omniscient god-concept's 'last resort' to be unacceptable; surely a being of greater intellectual capacity than ours can find a humane solution to his out-of-control-creation that doesn't involve destroying good-hearted people who simply could not believe in him?

tackattack Wrote:Ultimately the wages of sin is death. Be it quick, painful, once or twice, oblivion I feel is an appropriate punishment.

So whatever god says goes basically. It's sad you're so hopelessly convinced that you can't admit you're way more moral than a Hebrew tribal deity who advocated slavery and the murdering of first-born infants, i.e. God.

And anyway as far as we can know anything within the context of practical meaningful knowledge, 'oblivion' is not an accurate statement by any stretch of the imagination, its safe to say after I'm long dead, the atoms that once made me up will still be around for a good few quadrillion years, assuming black holes don't break them into x-rays/gamma radiation before they too evaporate away.

tackattack Wrote:I didn't say you were fuel for God's wrath as you have it. Firstly, I don't believe in eternal torment, but I do believe in hell as a place separate from God and built for the fallen. Secondly I think wrathfullnes isn't a trait I see in God so I don't attribute it as any more than man's personifications.

Hooray for contradictory positions, so you don't believe in eternal suffering only eternal consequences which is still immoral and unjust yet you also harbour a belief in Hell; literally a place or state where the damned are in eternal torment. Hell is separate from God, yet you simultaneously hold the belief God is Omnipresent, therefore by extension he is everywhere, including the Hell of his own making.

Even when I was young theist I found it strenuous to overlook the complete and utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flooding of the world in Noah's time as anything but the acts of a wrathful, vengeful tyrant, primarily because the ends simply didn't justify the means. The cities and early peoples were of no threat to this creator or his dominion, yet he was so filled with hatred he utterly wiped them out, he didn't even try to rebuke them or correct their errors.

tackattack Wrote:Lastly, To answer your question, if God were wrathful the object of his wrath would be the sin, not his creation.

Love the sinner yet hate the sin huh? What a load of bloody bullshit tack - that's certainly not what you've been arguing these past several posts. According to your doctrine, I fry, horribly, end of story, regardless of the punishment's duration.

tackattack Wrote:4-I'm not saying what happens on the day of judgment isn't clear on what happens to the unrepennant. It is clear on that. I don't assume that once we die it's immediately to the judgement.

What difference does it make? The second death is still the only outcome for me according to your faith regardless of prior events and timescale. I see no reason to address this because that's not what you were arguing earlier.

tackattack Wrote:ANswer to: Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just? No, but the fire of hell consumes to oblivion, therefore not eternal. While the fire may be eternal the torment isn't, I don't think I've gotten that across to you clearly yet.

You don't appreciate that is eternal; since the consequences of simply disbelieving in God/Jesus in this single short lifespan (70-100 years at best) are everlasting. I'm saddened you could conceive of a standard that punishes me eternally for simply living my life as best as I can, yet others who could have been absolute dicks to their fellow man who believed in god wholeheartedly can stand to reap the rewards of eternal life in paradise. It's not just, regardless of whether I want to live on after death or not, besides my family would be heartbroken assuming they didn't share my doom; there are others no doubt who are terribly afraid of ceasing to exist that I also can't ignore.

(July 11, 2010 at 2:25 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

(July 7, 2010 at 2:00 am)tackattack Wrote: I wouldn't know how to wrap my head around how to percieve something like eing love without the ability to perceive.

...come again?

tackattack Wrote:2-I hate reusing old analogies but, can't the creator of the cuckoo clock claim creation over his work?

I also hate analogies that borrow from the flawed Watchmaker Argument too, so let's not go down that road please.

tackattack Wrote:God is omnipotent in relation to the confines of our universe, only in that he wouldn't willfully destroy wholly what he's created not that he is lacking in power.

So... God is not omnipotent then? Or do you regard the universe as infinite? Again I really hate pressing you for question after question all the time but your statements lately are lacking any explanatory power and are becoming increasingly vague.

tackattack Wrote:3- I didn't know I was back peddaling to Annihilationism, I thought I as talking aboutit the whole time.

If you were arguing for Annihilationism this entire time then I apologise for not understanding your position earlier. Nevertheless I still find this omniscient god-concept's 'last resort' to be unacceptable; surely a being of greater intellectual capacity than ours can find a humane solution to his out-of-control-creation that doesn't involve destroying good-hearted people who simply could not believe in him?

tackattack Wrote:Ultimately the wages of sin is death. Be it quick, painful, once or twice, oblivion I feel is an appropriate punishment.

So whatever god says goes basically. It's sad you're so hopelessly convinced that you can't admit you're way more moral than a Hebrew tribal deity who advocated slavery and the murdering of first-born infants, i.e. God.

And anyway as far as we can know anything within the context of practical meaningful knowledge, 'oblivion' is not an accurate statement by any stretch of the imagination, its safe to say after I'm long dead, the atoms that once made me up will still be around for a good few quadrillion years, assuming black holes don't break them into x-rays/gamma radiation before they too evaporate away.

tackattack Wrote:I didn't say you were fuel for God's wrath as you have it. Firstly, I don't believe in eternal torment, but I do believe in hell as a place separate from God and built for the fallen. Secondly I think wrathfullnes isn't a trait I see in God so I don't attribute it as any more than man's personifications.

Hooray for contradictory positions, so you don't believe in eternal suffering only eternal consequences which is still immoral and unjust yet you also harbour a belief in Hell; literally a place or state where the damned are in eternal torment. Hell is separate from God, yet you simultaneously hold the belief God is Omnipresent, therefore by extension he is everywhere, including the Hell of his own making.

Even when I was young theist I found it strenuous to overlook the complete and utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flooding of the world in Noah's time as anything but the acts of a wrathful, vengeful tyrant, primarily because the ends simply didn't justify the means. The cities and early peoples were of no threat to this creator or his dominion, yet he was so filled with hatred he utterly wiped them out, he didn't even try to rebuke them or correct their errors.

tackattack Wrote:Lastly, To answer your question, if God were wrathful the object of his wrath would be the sin, not his creation.

Love the sinner yet hate the sin huh? What a load of bloody bullshit tack - that's certainly not what you've been arguing these past several posts. According to your doctrine, I fry, horribly, end of story, regardless of the punishment's duration.

tackattack Wrote:4-I'm not saying what happens on the day of judgment isn't clear on what happens to the unrepennant. It is clear on that. I don't assume that once we die it's immediately to the judgement.

What difference does it make? The second death is still the only outcome for me according to your faith regardless of prior events and timescale. I see no reason to address this because that's not what you were arguing earlier.

tackattack Wrote:ANswer to: Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just? No, but the fire of hell consumes to oblivion, therefore not eternal. While the fire may be eternal the torment isn't, I don't think I've gotten that across to you clearly yet.

You don't appreciate that is eternal; since the consequences of simply disbelieving in God/Jesus in this single short lifespan (70-100 years at best) are everlasting. I'm saddened you could conceive of a standard that punishes me eternally for simply living my life as best as I can, yet others who could have been absolute dicks to their fellow man who believed in god wholeheartedly can stand to reap the rewards of eternal life in paradise. It's not just, regardless of whether I want to live on after death or not, besides my family would be heartbroken assuming they didn't share my doom; there are others no doubt who are terribly afraid of ceasing to exist that I also can't ignore.

---

Sorry for the late response, it got lost in my drafts and I've been a little busy.

1- Correct God is not omnipotent if you define omnipotent as just all powerful, and no I don’t believe the universe is infinite. I apologize if my posts seemed vague, that wasn’t my intent.
2- You can have the best intentions (good heats) and still have them misplaced. I believe the scriptures are quite clear regarding the destruction of the soul and the day of reckoning. While it’s regrettable the imagery used was in a fiery torment, that’s what I have to go on. The question still remains, if you were given irrefutable evidence (by actually being in the presence) of God, would you have regrets for any of your incorrect life’s view (and the actions caused) from before?
3- Humanity advocated slavery and the murdering of first-born infants, and used God as an excuse. The Bible is clear on doing things for the gain of wealth in this world and unjust murder and simply declaring it God’s will, without the sacrament of confirmation, is not only flagrantly selfish and un Christian, but fanaticism at it’s worst.
4- As far as oblivion, they didn’t have the science to understand atoms and molecules. When it says you’re destroyed body and soul, it as simple as the atoms that compose your body will decompose and your soul will cease to be.
5- It’s not a contradictory position. I believe Hell is a place after the judgment where those who aren’t allowed in God’s presence to reside. You won’t be there, at least not for eternity. God as an entity would exists wherever he exists and then wherever he’s not in the nothingness is hell. Hell is a separation from God; sin is doing things that take you farther from God, thus closer to hell.
6- Love the sinner yet hate the sin is actually quite a common Christian sentiment. It prevents things like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkgmU9vG_o
and the problem of how God loves us yet hates or punishes sin (thought I’d interject a little atheist humor). Yes bottom line you’ll be accountable for your life and depending on your answer to my question in #2 you’ll get your result.
7- I don’t appreciate it’s eternal, because I don’t believe it is. Hell may exist for eternity but how can you be eternally punished and destroyed to the point of oblivion? Simple answer you can’t. I thought I was clear on this before but apparently not. You destroy both soul and body in hell, is pretty clear on its interpretation that hell is a place for your soul to be destroyed to oblivion.

(July 14, 2010 at 4:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- Correct God is not omnipotent if you define omnipotent as just all powerful, and no I don’t believe the universe is infinite. I apologize if my posts seemed vague, that wasn’t my intent.

That IS the definition of one being omnipotent - omnipotence comes from the Latin phrase Omni Potens which means "all-power" i.e. unlimited power. This is normally an attribute or characteristic assigned to your god concept at least as far as monotheistic religions go.

tackattack Wrote:2- You can have the best intentions (good heats) and still have them misplaced. I believe the scriptures are quite clear regarding the destruction of the soul and the day of reckoning. While it’s regrettable the imagery used was in a fiery torment, that’s what I have to go on. The question still remains, if you were given irrefutable evidence (by actually being in the presence) of God, would you have regrets for any of your incorrect life’s view (and the actions caused) from before?

First you attempt a Watchmaker Argument and now you're attempting a pseudo Pascal's Wager here, perhaps unintentionally, but you're still reinforcing the notion of betting on infinity leading to the probability of believing in the wrong god(s) or disbelieving the true one(s). What if the Invisible Pink Unicorn was real? Would you have regrets for subscribing to a false idol instead of her? Here's a tentative suggestion: try reading up on the argument from inconsistent revelations first or you could save time researching and simply watch this brilliantly insightful video from TheraminTrees and QualiaSoup, either way place your bets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

tackattack Wrote:3- Humanity advocated slavery and the murdering of first-born infants, and used God as an excuse. The Bible is clear on doing things for the gain of wealth in this world and unjust murder and simply declaring it God’s will, without the sacrament of confirmation, is not only flagrantly selfish and un Christian, but fanaticism at it’s worst.

Yes that's what happens in the real-world for the various atrocities stated, in the Bible however, it is Yahweh that is speaking in the first-person, he is giving the orders and commandments to his chosen people to murder and/or enslave other peoples and races.

tackattack Wrote:4- As far as oblivion, they didn’t have the science to understand atoms and molecules. When it says you’re destroyed body and soul, it as simple as the atoms that compose your body will decompose and your soul will cease to be.

Point is my atoms *carry on existing*. Your God concept whether he exists or not *cannot* destroy my body (matter) entirely because that would violate the fundamental laws of physics with regards to the Law of Conservation of Mass, so this theologian belief is already proven to be false as far as Empirical laws are concerned and you've yet to demonstrate a soul actually exists, let alone god(s).

tackattack Wrote:5- It’s not a contradictory position. I believe Hell is a place after the judgment where those who aren’t allowed in God’s presence to reside. You won’t be there, at least not for eternity. God as an entity would exists wherever he exists and then wherever he’s not in the nothingness is hell. Hell is a separation from God; sin is doing things that take you farther from God, thus closer to hell.

This is why apologists often assert it is a state, an illusion of separation from God, not a literal place, because even they recognise that within Biblical scriptures Hell is quoted as being in God's (and Jesus') divine inescapable presence because monotheistic religious philosophers assert God is omnipresent i.e. he is everywhere, that subsequently includes the not-so-eternal Hell you assert is true.

tackattack Wrote:6- Yes bottom line you’ll be accountable for your life and depending on your answer to my question in #2 you’ll get your result.

And why conversely is God not accountable for any wrong doing in my life? If God doesn't believe in Gods does that make him an atheist too? Will he be condemned by some higher God/deity for simply not believing without evidence too? ;P

tackattack Wrote:7- I don’t appreciate it’s eternal, because I don’t believe it is. Hell may exist for eternity but how can you be eternally punished and destroyed to the point of oblivion? Simple answer you can’t. I thought I was clear on this before but apparently not. You destroy both soul and body in hell, is pretty clear on its interpretation that hell is a place for your soul to be destroyed to oblivion.

Again, please define what a soul actually is first and how exactly can it be destroyed at all before making aforementioned claims about it.

(July 14, 2010 at 6:55 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

(July 14, 2010 at 4:39 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- Correct God is not omnipotent if you define omnipotent as just all powerful, and no I don’t believe the universe is infinite. I apologize if my posts seemed vague, that wasn’t my intent.

That IS the definition of one being omnipotent - omnipotence comes from the Latin phrase Omni Potens which means "all-power" i.e. unlimited power. This is normally an attribute or characteristic assigned to your god concept at least as far as monotheistic religions go.

tackattack Wrote:2- You can have the best intentions (good heats) and still have them misplaced. I believe the scriptures are quite clear regarding the destruction of the soul and the day of reckoning. While it’s regrettable the imagery used was in a fiery torment, that’s what I have to go on. The question still remains, if you were given irrefutable evidence (by actually being in the presence) of God, would you have regrets for any of your incorrect life’s view (and the actions caused) from before?

First you attempt a Watchmaker Argument and now you're attempting a pseudo Pascal's Wager here, perhaps unintentionally, but you're still reinforcing the notion of betting on infinity leading to the probability of believing in the wrong god(s) or disbelieving the true one(s). What if the Invisible Pink Unicorn was real? Would you have regrets for subscribing to a false idol instead of her? Here's a tentative suggestion: try reading up on the argument from inconsistent revelations first or you could save time researching and simply watch this brilliantly insightful video from TheraminTrees and QualiaSoup, either way place your bets.

tackattack Wrote:3- Humanity advocated slavery and the murdering of first-born infants, and used God as an excuse. The Bible is clear on doing things for the gain of wealth in this world and unjust murder and simply declaring it God’s will, without the sacrament of confirmation, is not only flagrantly selfish and un Christian, but fanaticism at it’s worst.

Yes that's what happens in the real-world for the various atrocities stated, in the Bible however, it is Yahweh that is speaking in the first-person, he is giving the orders and commandments to his chosen people to murder and/or enslave other peoples and races.

tackattack Wrote:4- As far as oblivion, they didn’t have the science to understand atoms and molecules. When it says you’re destroyed body and soul, it as simple as the atoms that compose your body will decompose and your soul will cease to be.

Point is my atoms *carry on existing*. Your God concept whether he exists or not *cannot* destroy my body (matter) entirely because that would violate the fundamental laws of physics with regards to the Law of Conservation of Mass, so this theologian belief is already proven to be false as far as Empirical laws are concerned and you've yet to demonstrate a soul actually exists, let alone god(s).

tackattack Wrote:5- It’s not a contradictory position. I believe Hell is a place after the judgment where those who aren’t allowed in God’s presence to reside. You won’t be there, at least not for eternity. God as an entity would exists wherever he exists and then wherever he’s not in the nothingness is hell. Hell is a separation from God; sin is doing things that take you farther from God, thus closer to hell.

This is why apologists often assert it is a state, an illusion of separation from God, not a literal place, because even they recognise that within Biblical scriptures Hell is quoted as being in God's (and Jesus') divine inescapable presence because monotheistic religious philosophers assert God is omnipresent i.e. he is everywhere, that subsequently includes the not-so-eternal Hell you assert is true.

tackattack Wrote:6- Yes bottom line you’ll be accountable for your life and depending on your answer to my question in #2 you’ll get your result.

And why conversely is God not accountable for any wrong doing in my life? If God doesn't believe in Gods does that make him an atheist too? Will he be condemned by some higher God/deity for simply not believing without evidence too? ;P

tackattack Wrote:7- I don’t appreciate it’s eternal, because I don’t believe it is. Hell may exist for eternity but how can you be eternally punished and destroyed to the point of oblivion? Simple answer you can’t. I thought I was clear on this before but apparently not. You destroy both soul and body in hell, is pretty clear on its interpretation that hell is a place for your soul to be destroyed to oblivion.

Again, please define what a soul actually is first and how exactly can it be destroyed at all before making aforementioned claims about it.

---

1- And the vernacular definition among Christians includes the assumption of "within the universe" I think i stated is well in the other thread.

2- Nice video, I wasn't atempting a pascal's wager or a watchmaker arguement. I know little to nothing on those things, I was simply earlier trying to use an analogy similar. And in the later post I was simply trying to get you to answer a question, which you still haven't done. In pursuit of the truth you can take only the material and superficial into account or you can allow your perspective to widen the possibilities. It's not about wagering on which one is right or wrong, it's about coming up with a more correct answer than the rock is a rock and will always be a rock because I only know "a rock".
If the IPU were real I'd believe in that. I'd have regrets that I was wrong specifically but satisfaction in my general direction. See you asked 2 questions and I answered 2. Feel free to try, I'll ask again:
if you were given irrefutable evidence (by actually being in the presence) of God, would you have regrets for any of your incorrect life’s view (and the actions caused) from before?

3- While God speaking directly is the exception, not the rule, it would still have to be weighed against the consciousness and in agreeance within the Church. In few if any of the many references in the Bible is confirmation accomplished. It's far more likely that it happens less then even the Bible attributes it and is probably typically of a selfish or negative desire rather than truly God's will. It is up to the individual to confirm that it's God speaking and not the self, or Satan.

4- No. The compound defined as your body would seperate and become just atoms. All compounds we currently define as bodies (thusly no longer being a body) will deconstruct themselves to atoms as part of the natural process.

5- How can you discombobulate my ideas that badly? Hell is just as eternal as heaven. If heaven is a state of becoming one with God (which I believe it is) then Hell would be the opposite a "state" of being separate from God. If space exists after the universe's end then it would be wherever God isn't residing.

6- I don't see why God wouldn't be accountable. I also don't see why you can't contribute your lacking relationship with God to the "wrong doing" in your life. I attribute both the good and the bad in my life to God and am frequently amazed how from the slightest to the largest bad thing can be used for a selfless and righteous purpose. Accountability lies in the fruits of words and actions. If evil overcomes good then God's plan was flawed and he should be accountable, if good overcomes then God's plan was right.

7- A soul is the hypothetical immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. You either have a materialstic view or one that allows for the immaterial. I'll assume you're a materialist?

(July 7, 2010 at 2:00 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- All I have to go off of is what I've observed for myself. I think I defined God here fairly specifically. Do I think every Chrsitian will agree to at a minimum the cited? No, but I think it'd be a percentile in the nineties. I only assume that because no one's done the study and from my observations I've yet to meet any Christian in the disagreeing percentile. This definition hasn't changed since I've been a Christian and it is verifiable, go ask someone claiming to be a Christian. I'm not redefining, playing with words or moving any goal posts.

There is no way to distinguish the definition you are referring to from a pile of dirty laundry left rotting in the sun.

Some examples:
"God is the Alpha, the Omega,"
This is not cognitively meaningfull. Are we to understand that god has a beginning and an end? If not than what? Get some critical thinking in it. You try to define something with undefined terms. It is like a sign on every office window saying "we will help you at the next office window"...

"the one true God"
Completely devoid of any information and circular. We are to conclude that "God is the one true God"? This is childlike brabble and an insult of my intellect. Don''t refer to this nonsense again.

"God is able to have personal relationships with humans and thus has a consciousness and self-identity."
1 - Not describing what god IS.
2 - The "thus" is a non sequitur since even animals without humanlike conscious can have personal relations with humans
3 - Up to this point nothing in your definition makes clear how to distinguish between god and human

"God is creator,"
Creator of what and how are we to verify that? As long as there is no way to verify that it was your god that created it and not one of the millions of gods "around" it is cognitively empty. So far the definition is still very vague and according to it my dog fits your definition. And I haven't even got one.

"redeemer,"
1 - Say, is this definition only for personal use? If so, it has no value for further distribution. If not, with a definition others should be able to identify an entity in reality with it unambiguously. That's anything but a far cry with this "definition".
2 - So far nothing but humanlike traits

"guide."
1 - Michelin?
2 - So far nothing but humanlike traits

This is so boringly stupid, that it hurts my sensitive brain. Due to medical reasons I'll stop here.

(July 7, 2010 at 2:00 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-Regardless of how you feel about it, subjective evidence is evidence by it's very definition. My evidence may not be usefull to your truth, but truth is subjective for us I think. That doesn't mean you couldn't find similar evidence of your own; then, what seems like confirmation bias from your current perspective would be corroboration of subjective truth leading to a universal truth concept.

Complete crap. Subjective evidence is a contradiction in terms invented to free ride on scientifc methodology. Evidence in the real word is verifiable by others, subjective evidence is not. Subjective evidence is nothing but opinion. Since anyone can believe in anything whether it's true or not, subjective evidence has no value at all in predicate logic.

This is how silly your claim is:

P1 I have subjective evidence that I am Napoleon
C Therefore I am Napoleon

Sorry about the late response, hayfever is killing me.

(July 15, 2010 at 4:03 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- And the vernacular definition among Christians includes the assumption of "within the universe" I think i stated is well in the other thread.

STOP. Omnipotence already has an everyday working definition and you asserted in a contradictory statement that this all-powerful universe creating deity is not so all-powerful after all. I personally don't mind if you have a different concept of god from most Christians, that's your privilege anyway, but you're not entitled to change the meaning of the word "omnipotent" to help your argument sound more credible. Your current concept of God is either omnipotent or he is not.

tackattack Wrote:2- And in the later post I was simply trying to get you to answer a question, which you still haven't done.
...
if you were given irrefutable evidence (by actually being in the presence) of God, would you have regrets for any of your incorrect life’s view (and the actions caused) from before?

Except I'm not the one making claims that a cosmos deity is going to burn me in Hell for an infinite/finite amount of time for simply not believing in it, asking me, an atheist, for an opinion on how I feel is senseless, how one feels has no bearing on reality and is irrelevant to our discussion, especially when I asked you first to demonstrate your earlier claim with god interacting with reality, yet supposedly subject to the laws of physics, thermodynamics he created. You're changing the subject and shifting the burden of proof here tack.

tackattack Wrote:3- While God speaking directly is the exception, not the rule, it would still have to be weighed against the consciousness and in agreeance within the Church. In few if any of the many references in the Bible is confirmation accomplished. It's far more likely that it happens less then even the Bible attributes it and is probably typically of a selfish or negative desire rather than truly God's will. It is up to the individual to confirm that it's God speaking and not the self, or Satan.

Screw the appeal to authority (church). Are you seriously arguing the supposedly transparently-clear Bible on "God's love" you've been building your case on isn't even an accurate representation of your God's character? Just because it depicts him whenever he's behaving both morally AND immorally? So when he's being a deplorable bastard it's not really him being a deplorable bastard, oh no, but actually man and/or Satan advocating said acts to god? If that's the case then your argument just went:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRw9328aVmE
…because if the Bible is this skewed, this inaccurate and unreliable then you've lost, you have no valid casual connection to attribute or associate ANY acts committed with this sky daddy in the first instance. Please tell me I simply misread you.

tackattack Wrote:4- No. The compound defined as your body would seperate and become just atoms. All compounds we currently define as bodies (thusly no longer being a body) will deconstruct themselves to atoms as part of the natural process.

That's oversimplifying it just a tad; my body is not literally a chemical compound (singular) it's made up of many compounds, biological structures and cellular components such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and other biomolecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition...human_body

tackattack Wrote:5- How can you discombobulate my ideas that badly? Hell is just as eternal as heaven. If heaven is a state of becoming one with God (which I believe it is) then Hell would be the opposite a "state" of being separate from God. If space exists after the universe's end then it would be wherever God isn't residing.

First off, you are refuting the notion of god's omnipresence not me, so please define him in a clear positive ontology, or have a meaningful characterisation at least if it's not too much trouble. Second, I thought you monotheists assert that only god alone is eternal and there is no other like him? And don't you also believe, by corollary, that becoming one with god i.e. becoming god himself is as impossible as it is blasphemous?

tackattack Wrote:6- I also don't see why you can't contribute your lacking relationship with God to the "wrong doing" in your life.

What "wrong doing" is there in my life tack?

tackattack Wrote:If evil overcomes good then God's plan was flawed and he should be accountable, if good overcomes then God's plan was right.

Good and evil don't exist in reality objectively they are merely subjective labels used to describe people's actions or inactions. If god is intelligent then surely he likewise is capable of both?

Quote:Isaiah 45:7 'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'

tackattack Wrote:7- A soul is the hypothetical immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. You either have a materialstic view or one that allows for the immaterial. I'll assume you're a materialist?

Depends on the subject matter; I suppose you could ordinarily call me a naturalist, but within philosophical debates I tend to use materialism and physicalism interchangeably. Back to the soul: can you demonstrate to me its existence? Can you falsify or refute it? Or is this all mental masturbation with metaphysics?

(June 10, 2010 at 7:06 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: Any time you talk to a theist about God, they will systematically say the same thing: God has higher means than us, and we cannot understand his nature. But the thing is that it is God himself who said that he had higher means. So why do they believe in it ? What evidence do they have that suggests God, if he exists, has higher means than humans ?

well, if God created everything, then what He created should be a proof of God being superior to man (in the context that God exists, obviously). If God made a brain for us giving us the capacity of thinking, then the capability and knowledge to do that (well, He knew what He was doing), the way he designed everything from how the human eye works to all other things that give us senses, makes us able to walk, breath, live, etc. and all the Universe that He created and the laws of the Universe that He set make us understand that He should have a very good memory (to keep in mind everything He did so far, so that He would build atop), logic, wisdom, etc. As for humans alone, the creator can never be lower than his creation (as a 2d being cannot create a 3d being, as a being of a 2d world cannot even imagine a 3d world). And yeah, how could you compare a lifetime of ~80 years old of existence (experience) with an 'eternity'?

Quote:However in the Bible itself, there is evidence suggesting that God, in fact, does not have higher ways than us, and may well be either a malevolent being, or a human-like being.

-He is always said to be all-loving and forgiving. This would mean that he feels at least some human emotions.

damn these. I rather prefer exact verses to talk about than something I don't know exactly where it's written and how exactly it's written. Anyway, as about the feelings, from the Bible it doesn't appear as God is a person who falls to feelings (falling to His feelings is against doing something by reason). Moreover, consider if you succeeded at a laboratory to create some beings as big as the ants. You would not like to see somebody crushing them - you care for them. But you can't care for(i.e. love) them as you care for your mother, your brother, your girlfriend/wife, etc. The 'love' you show to your creations can only be deduced from what you do for them (feed them, etc.).

Quote:-He created man "in his image and likeness". If "image" means appearance, then, to me, "likeness" means the intelligence and emotions that men have, like anger, jealousy, but also kindness and compassion.

If two objects are alike it doesn't mean they are identical (equality in all attributes = 100%). They are only similar, and one may be more advanced than another (but one could have been used as a moder for another).

Quote:-He regretted making man, so he created the Flood. This means that he can feel regret (a "bad" emotion) and can make mistakes (making him fallible)

about mistakes... well, if he regretted so much what He did and said "oops! now I see what I've done!" He would have killed absolutely everybody - and would have not saved Noah and his family. If God created man allowing him to decide how to be like and all humanity finally became utterly unpleasant (which was against God's desire of how things should be), perhaps the "felt sorry" was the proper way to explain it.

Quote:-The 10 Commandments start by statements that he is to be followed at all times. He is clearly a jealous God.

well, considering that the opposite (especially back then) meant to follow other gods and do the things that those gods required (sacrifice your children to the gods, having bloody gods that were told to have bathed in blood and were boasted as how many people they have murdered, asking adultery & orgies, etc.) perhaps God didn't like too much such servants of Him that would also do those things, which were also 100% against what Himself asked from them. Besides that, His "servants", by definition, supposed to be His servants only (and it is funny for a God to create beings, whom then turn their back to their God and start to worship pieces of wood and stone they assembled together - and God was supposed to like that?).

Quote:-The Bible says that he does not simply say "believe in me and you will be saved", he says "if you do not believe in me, you will burn in Hell". This means he is a cruel God, with unjust sentences.

I have written something once about the subject in some posts. Don't have the disposition to seek it or something.

Quote:-He is capable of lying: he told Adam and Eve that they would die should they eat the forbidden fruit. Although this has been said by theists that they mean a "spiritual death", he still did not tell them the truth about what would happen if they ate the fruit.

There is a possibility, though I am not 100% sure of it. If "day" meant a period of time (or, even, the days lasted much longer when God created man) then Adam & Eve had died in the same 'day' (this would require a 1000 current years = a 'day' of creation, because Adam lived 900+). But, as I said, it's just a hypothesis, I don't know if it was meant this thing.

Quote:He also lied to Abraham when he told him he had to sacrifice his son to him. Even though he did not mean it, it does show that he is capable of lying, a quality shared with humans.

That was not a lie. I mean, only an affirmation can be "true" or "false". An interrogation or command cannot be.

Quote:-If he is all-loving, would he not do anything do prevent his beloved children from going to Hell ?

Yeah, according to the Bible, only some people (men & women) are His children, as they are being 'adopted' by Him, and they go to heaven.

Quote:The only response is that he is testing us, and has a higher plan, which brings this following question:

-If he knows everything, why would he need to test us ? Should he not know what will happen ? And if he does, and knows the person will be sent to Hell, he is not all-loving.

I have also talked about this subject in other posts.

Quote:-His "creation" is not perfect. for example, our eyes fail many of us, forcing us to wear glasses, or even be blind. Some of us are born with genetic deficiencies, some die seconds after they are born. Species of animals and plants disappear every year without any intervention from man, meaning that not only man, but all of life, is not perfect.

According to the Bible, His "creation" was "good" - perfectness is not specified, and perhaps it had a slight different meaning by then - but not anymore.

Hopefully someone would be interested in the post I have written and thus I had not wasted my time stupidly.