A good reason not to believe in God

[theVOID]

Mortality and immortality are the antithesis of each other, in equal amounts antithesis cancel out, because a being is either mortal or immortal (a binary evaluation) they are necessarily equal and necessarily cancel out.

Just like +1 and -1 cancel out to 0, Mortality and Immortality cancel out to zero, the proposition is self-defeating.

[reverendjeremiah]

Ok Mr Terrier "I wont let go of this tasty bone"

You have faith Mike, that the temporal and atemporal occupy the same physical space, and I admire your courage in stating it. You fail to grasp the notion that something can be more than one dimensional... That we can refer to each dimension with the same root name, but mean something entirely different. What can I do??

At this point I would just say "God damn it" and move on to another subject like Toot would do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n32Bd6QNJyM

[Edwardo Piet]

---

Ok Mr Terrier "I wont let go of this tasty bone"

You have faith Mike, that the temporal and atemporal occupy the same physical space, and I admire your courage in stating it. You fail to grasp the notion that something can be more than one dimensional... That we can refer to each dimension with the same root name, but mean something entirely different. What can I do??

---

[fr0d0]

Retraction ...get some here

After discussing this with my Christian & mathematician wife and VOID earlier I now concede that to use percentages is some sort of abomination in mathematical terms. I shall no longer use the term 100% Man & God, because that is incorrect. You can only ever have 100% of anything.

Whilst Jesus the man was God on earth.. he was not also 100% God. He was, according to the doctrine I follow, fully God and fully man.

Like VOID brought up... we have a soul, and we are physical being. My soul is me, and my body is it's physical container. I'm my immortal soul, but my body is mortal.

So, in case you're interested: my answer to VOIDs question above is... My religious reasoning goes like this.... given a and b, a makes more sense than b, so I'll assume a. There's usually strong reason to assume a. VOID informs me that this is Bayesian reasoning.

[theVOID]

Good, so you've settled on Bayesian epistemology, now you need to present the data that you belief is actually more likely given the existence of god than naturalism - Then we can determine whether or not you are justified.

[reverendjeremiah]

I posted a list somewhere on this forum about the biggest mistakes made by faith based claimers, one of them being numbers. But thats okay..I will kudos you anyways. Alls fair in love and..

..beer...must have beer.

Whilst Jesus the man was God on earth.. he was not also 100% God. He was, according to the doctrine I follow, fully God and fully man.

I take back my kudos.."fully" is the EXACT same thing as "100%"..you just repeated the same failed argument of numbers, but used words to describe the numbers. You might as well have said

Whilst Jesus the man was God on earth.. he was not also 100% God. He was, according to the doctrine I follow, one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man.

Nice try..BUSTED!

[fr0d0]

Data = the bible

I could offer my own interpretation but I guess that wouldn't do. I have worked on it a long time and thought long and hard about the questions it raised for me.

100% is a mathematical limitation. I gave an explanation of my statement below it.

[Rayaan]

In this case, we're saying that God manifests himself fully within the person so making that person also fully God.

Clearly God is limiting himself severely as man. But never as God.

In the first sentence, you wrote that God manifests Himself fully within the person.

In the next sentence, you wrote that God is limiting Himself as a man (severely). Isn't that a contradiction?

[theVOID]

Data = the bible

THAT just shows me that you haven't understood the concept at all. You have to point to evidence about the world, say for example the medical case I used in the Chat room, 1% of people have disease x and 90% of people who have disease x will test positive. the 99% of people who do not have the disease have a 15% chance of a false positive, given that person y tests positive for disease x, what are the chances that they actually have the disease?

This sort of analysis will show that one of the two scenarios, having the disease or not having the disease, is more likely give the evidence (the % of people infected, the chances of testing positive if you have the disease and the number of false positives) and thus you are only justified in believing the thing that has the highest probability of being true.

I suggest you go look at some videos on youtube if you want to come to terms with how it works.

[fr0d0]

Sorry VOID that wasn't the reasoning I provided but the data used for the reasoning. You have to make sense of the questions raised and draw your conclusions. Like I said, I spent a lot of time scrutinising those questions thoroughly. This was around 25 years ago initially. And I'm constantly testing and re-evaluating. About 15 years ago I became an atheist. 5 years ago I became Christian again. I'm interested in the subject and address questions as they arise. I'm not the type of person who bothers to remember the fine detail to relate to people. I use it for myself and move on. I've been here a couple of years now, and in that time presented a lot of data. Still that's no where need enough information I personally would require to honestly tackle the problem in hand.

In the first sentence, you wrote that God manifests Himself fully within the person.

In the next sentence, you wrote that God is limiting Himself as a man (severely). Isn't that a contradiction?

Yep thanks, you are correct. What I meant is that God is always fully God. Obviously the human isn't fully God. But Jesus had the full potential of God... choosing to limit himself to human constraints for the most part. "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)

Jesus was human but with the inability to sin. Fully united with God as a human could be. As Adam was. Adam had the potential to sin, Jesus did not.

See Matt Slick's take here: http://carm.org/jesus-two-natures

Here's an attempt at an explanation: see from page 4 "The Logical Possibility of the Incarnation" : http://www.scribd.com/doc/45978722/One-P...atic-Union

[PS I think this thread needs splitting into how is Jesus fully God and fully Man.]