A good reason not to believe in God

[theVOID]

I am used to having people run away from me. More due to the fact I doodle around Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism and straight Anarchy. I am skeptical and looking for the dark side of everything, so once and a while I can't help mocking/laughing at authority or breaking the social boundaries.

An anarchist voting for the nanny party? hock:

Good to see you have a big ol' dose of anarchy though We all need more of that.

[Captain Scarlet]

Again your just asserting that. Please explain why.

No it is supported by all of reality:
1.all actions performed by actors are a result of cause and effect
2.all effects follow causes in time
3.time is required for actions
And yet again your assertions that a god could exist atemporally, is not a being and that Jesus was 100% man and 100% a god go unanswered. Perhaps you would like to support your assertions? It would make a pleasant change.

My assertion doesn't concern a being solely atemporal, so I cannot answer for such a theory.

This is new. So what is your assertion and defence? This is a problem of your own making as you either do not clearly state what yoe believe, or change what you believe to fit the debate.

Forgive me for trying to pin you down to a meaning. You want physical proofs of the physically unprovable? Are you seriously wanting to own that question?

You erected a strawman (twice) and respond with this? You said:

"So you are saying you are not interested in physical proof of God/ a soul/ Jesus being also God???"

I said:

Yes it was a strawman, and you have just erected another: I did not say I was interested in physical proofs. But if you have some show some.

You are blatantly twisting my response. But seeing how you know god exists and you also know that it is physically unprovable, perhaps you'd like to offer your reasoning?

I've tried to explain to you both what I am not saying

and failed!

, which is, as works with the analogy well enough,

no it doesn't and you have recieved numerous valid rebuttals

that these are two aspects of this subject. You are trying to narrow this down to something it isn't, which makes it impossible and irrelevant for me to answer.

Aaah the unknowable question, the unreachable goal, the incomprehensible majesty of god. Just when you try and pin it down...poof it disappears behind words like these. You're sounding a lot like that tailor who built an amazing coat for the Emporer, but no-one could see it becuase they weren't clever enough.

[theVOID]

Again your just asserting that. Please explain why.

No it is supported by all of reality:
1.all actions performed by actors are a result of cause and effect
2.all effects follow causes in time
3.time is required for actions

Problems:

1. Black swan fallacy, we know of no acausal actions taken by actors, that does not necessitate there are none, you could make an effective bayesian argument from this, or an argument from best explanation (specifically in terms of consistency with background knowledge) but you cannot necessitate this is the case.

2. There are acausal quantum effects (to the best of our scientific understanding).

3. Necessitates that time always existed, this is contrary to our best scientific understandings.

And yet again your assertions that a god could exist atemporally, is not a being and that Jesus was 100% man and 100% a god go unanswered. Perhaps you would like to support your assertions? It would make a pleasant change.

Another problem:

His assertions that God could exist atemporally are no worse than your fallacious reasons why he could not, well, aside from the fact that you actually tried to make an argument.

Aside from that I agree:

Being 100% man and 100% god is just plainly illogical, If Jesus was made up of 1 complete human an 1 complete god his total being still has to equal 100%, that would necessarily be some combination of the two. I fail to understand why Christians fell the need to defend this plainly illogical dogma, it could be easily rectified without impacting on the message, yet they feel obligated to defend all the nonsense...

I would love to see Fr0ds back up some of his assertions with something even slightly resembling an argument, I just don't expect to see it.

[fr0d0]

No Evie... if you surmise that there are two of him, then you must equally surmise that because we state that a glass of milk is 100% milk and 100% liquid that there are indeed 2 glasses, one full of milk and one full of liquid. Such is the illogicality of your summation.

Sorry VOID I've lost the thread of our discussion there. Your dismissal of Divine Simplicity is completely lacking in detail. ie I can't consider it.

@ Scarlet: I'm tired of our dance. I have no idea where you're going and have lost interest in following you around this particular may pole.

@ VOID : I don't see how you're concluding, with the other two here, that an atemporal entity and a physical being would occupy the same space. Are you using science to draw that conclusion? It seems illogical to me.

[theVOID]

Sorry VOID I've lost the thread of our discussion there. Your dismissal of Divine Simplicity is completely lacking in detail. ie I can't consider it.

The general idea of Divine simplicity is that God is without parts and that he does not 'have' attributes but 'is' those attributes, this being 'simple' is in contrast to information theory where each piece of datum is a part of the data. Knowledge is data (a collection of parts) that is true. For God to have all knowledge requires he has complete data, and since data is a sum of parts, an omniscient being has/is in his consciousness all true datum, that is one hell of a lot of parts to have/be - Thus, Divine simplicity is nullified by information theory.

When examining the two proposed causes (sC) of the first state of affairs of the universe (sU) we can see that the sC involving an omniscient deity necessarily is one that requires having/being more "parts" than that of the naturalist sC, thus it is the explanation that requires more information to describe and the subsequently the PRIOR probability of sC being an omniscient deity is much lower than the sC of naturalism.

From this point evidence must be used to raise or lower then probabilities of either sC being true given the evidence we have available, and seeing as you freely admit we have ZERO evidence for the existence of an omniscient deity the probability of a naturalist sC is far higher than the probability of an omniscient sC, thus, we should prefer the explanation naturalist sC.

@ VOID : I don't see how you're concluding, with the other two here, that an atemporal entity and a physical being would occupy the same space. Are you using science to draw that conclusion? It seems illogical to me.

Not science, reason, it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

Omnipresence requires it, for God to be everywhere ("where" being necessarily spatial) requires he be in all space.

The impression I have is that God is everywhere and everywhen yet he is not temporally or spatially afflicted by either, time and space do not change the state of affairs that God is - would you agree?

[BlackUnicorn]

I am used to having people run away from me. More due to the fact I doodle around Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Communism and straight Anarchy. I am skeptical and looking for the dark side of everything, so once and a while I can't help mocking/laughing at authority or breaking the social boundaries.

An anarchist voting for the nanny party? hock:

Good to see you have a big ol' dose of anarchy though We all need more of that.

Either that or Winston Peters, Jim Anderton, Peter Dunn or Rodney Hide, neither of whom I fancy.

[reverendjeremiah]

I wonder if Spider man is 100% man and 100% spider?

[theVOID]

I despise them all Strangely Dunn is the Christian wacko out of that bunch and the first one out of that list I would vote for - I'm probably more closely aligned with Hide ideologically but I think he's a fucking untrustworthy shit head.

[BlackUnicorn]

I despise them all Strangely Dunn is the Christian wacko out of that bunch and the first one out of that list I would vote for - I'm probably more closely aligned with Hide ideologically but I think he's a fucking untrustworthy shit head.

I am more concerned about the people waging his tail, particularly Roger Douglas, and their no hoper reforms from the 1980s and 1990s. Economics has moved on from then, they haven't. The main reason I have no trust for National whatsoever is that many of those wackos still remain in National (both the economic and religious ones), then again Labour has is fair share of Maori spiritualist nutjobs, and some of their economic advisors are stuck in another two decades (the 1960s and 70s).

[theVOID]

I'd usually let their performance dictate my opinion, with the recession and now quake there is no chance of seeing how National would have done compared to labour.