A good reason not to believe in God

[Captain Scarlet]

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.

Can you point out some decent articles explaining this duality of a fully man and fully god being? At the moment it appears to be a verbal conjuring trick to reconcile the impossible. The articles I have read (inc. Matt Slicks) mention that there is a man nature and god nature. Incomprehensible concepts to me, as although I can see how Jesus could have been fully human given his DNA heritage and social conditioning, I cannot figure out what it means to say someone is fully god and further to that also fully god and fully human. If this amounts to a human physical form and a god like immaterial form (call it a soul for a placeholder), arguments for the existence of a soul would need to be carried. My assumption based on evidence is that dualism of this kind is utterly false and debunked.

As for atemporal existence. There is no repsonse on this. Merely typing atemporal into google and receiving hits does not suggest anyone has actually conceived of what it is (other than the word that is). I have found NO articles describing atemporal existence, whereas there are plenty describing the conceived attributes of god/s.

[Rayaan]

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

Well, I disagree with that for several different reasons.

See what I posted in this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-6234.html

[theVOID]

Sorry VOID that wasn't the reasoning I provided but the data used for the reasoning.

This still makes no sense, are you trying to say that the bible is more likely to exist given the existence of a deity than the existence of men? And if so how are you determining the probabilities?

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.

If that is the case you should have something more substantial to present than "I've had a think about it"

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.

How the hell can you possibly think you are justified in believing that God is more likely given the evidence available when you admit you struggle to even tackle the problem? You've clearly got nothing of substance, and if it is something that you cannot determine then you are not justified in believing it.

To say you think you are justified in believing in god in Bayesian terms (that god is more likely given the evidence) requires that you have a prior probability for the existence of a Christian God, a prior probability of the alternative gods and a prior probability of no god as well as a list of facts that you believe are more likely to be true given the existence of a Christian god than the other gods or no gods.

Do you have any of that?

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

So, I would like to know now how 'fully God and fully man' differs from fully mortal and fully immortal? (which is a contradiction).

[theVOID]

It's like if you wielded a bike to a car and called it a cike, it's a full bike and a full car, but a cike in totality is not a 100% bike and 100% car, it's some proportion of the two, say 80/20.

God is the car, Man is the bike, Jesus is the Cike.

Fully immortal and fully mortal still doesn't make sense as they are antithesis, a bike and a car are not two mutually exclusive terms.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's it, it's fine if he's a proportion man and a proportion God. But as fr0d0 is still saying fully man and fully God, it still doesn't make sense yet (unless he's sometimes fully God and other times fully man).

[fr0d0]

Can you point out some decent articles explaining this duality of a fully man and fully god being?

I'll take a look round.

[...] If this amounts to a human physical form and a god like immaterial form (call it a soul for a placeholder)

I agree with your summation.

As for atemporal existence.

How are you testing for that? I don't need to, because I already know the pursuit to be logically bankrupt.

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

Well, I disagree with that for several different reasons.

See what I posted in this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-6234.html

Thanks I'll check that when I get time.

Sorry VOID that wasn't the reasoning I provided but the data used for the reasoning.

This still makes no sense, are you trying to say that the bible is more likely to exist given the existence of a deity than the existence of men? And if so how are you determining the probabilities?

I have no idea what you mean. What I mean is that the source for ideas is the bible. Those are what we test for consistency and work out if we agree with them or not.

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.

If that is the case you should have something more substantial to present than "I've had a think about it"

Yeah thousands of thoughts and arguments in my head all pointing to the conclusions drawn. I espouse them all the time. Sorry I can't just pick one out of the air. Ask me a real question.

This was around 25 years ago initially....

How the hell can you possibly think you are justified in believing that God is more likely given the evidence available when you admit you struggle to even tackle the problem? You've clearly got nothing of substance, and if it is something that you cannot determine then you are not justified in believing it.

I would expect you to subject your own conclusions to no less scrutiny. If you didn't, then I'd have little respect for your opinion, or your beliefs.

To say you think you are justified in believing in god in Bayesian terms (that god is more likely given the evidence) requires that you have a prior probability for the existence of a Christian God, a prior probability of the alternative gods and a prior probability of no god as well as a list of facts that you believe are more likely to be true given the existence of a Christian god than the other gods or no gods.

Do you have any of that?

I have nothing regarding the existence of God because that is never the question for me. I believe in him. I am not concerned with his existence.

Now talking logical necessity to believe, and the necessity to disbelieve, believe in an alternative or not... then that's precisely what I'm talking about above. I am convinced of the former, and actively test that on the rest, because that's what I believe God wants me to do to actively love him. My indifference would be an insult to my belief.

The facts are all in the bible, and it's up to us how we rationalise the evidence presented.

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.

So, I would like to know now how 'fully God and fully man' differs from fully mortal and fully immortal? (which is a contradiction).

It doesn't differ at all DvC. (Did you read the second link?)

[theVOID]

I have nothing regarding the existence of God because that is never the question for me. I believe in him. I am not concerned with his existence.

You've said some seriously stupid things in this thread already, but that was sooooo fucking stupid that there is only one thing left to say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA

EPIC FAIL

[Minimalist]

I believe in him. I am not concerned with his existence.

My kids used to feel that way about Santa.



But they grew out of it.

[fr0d0]

What I'm talking about, is the monotonous atheist mantra of proof of existence, which is logically impossible. The emphasis on proof before belief, which is the most ludicrous statement I can imagine. I keep saying that... no one challenges it, and then you make childish jibes like this. It's proven to be par for the course.