A good reason not to believe in God

[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?)