Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Lek]

Claim #1 - A god is ALL KNOWING - past, present, and future
Claim #2 - A god is ALmighty - there is NOTHING that the god cannot do

These two are contradictory - can a god do something it does not already know it will do? If it can - then the god is not all knowing =- and if it cannot - then the god is NOT almighty. But the two statements cannot BOTH be true at the same time. And therefore the religion(s) that claim such nonsense cannot be true as well.

You're saying that these things are impossible, by the authority of your human understanding and reasoning. We believe in the trinity, but can't logically understand the concept. If we're dealing with God, we're dealing with a being who doesn't always act according to our understanding of how things are supposed to be.

[Tonus]

If we're dealing with God, we're dealing with a being who doesn't always act according to our understanding of how things are supposed to be.

Why not give us the ability to understand how things are supposed to be? This cannot possibly be outside of god's capabilities. Nor does he have any reason to hide anything from humanity-- they cannot bring him to account for it. So the notion that he works in ways that defy logic and reason because he has differing standards of logic and reason (the "mysterious ways" idea) doesn't make sense.

[ThomM]

Why are they all so fucking illogical and idiotic? Moreover, why are so many people dumb enough to be "persuaded" by them?

The problem is - gods have been defined by the "people" who created them

If only one person made the claims - it is possible that they would not contradict themselves. But as long as gods like the xtian one(Three) - are defined by VOTE - based on lots of different claims - the humans who voted forgot to edit the claims to eliminate things that cannot all be true at the same time.

Young people believe in Santa Claus because adults they trust say Santa is real. And - kids want Santa to be real - because they want the things Santa stands for in their minds.

The same exists for claimed gods - the people see the actually things that exist on this earth - and want to believe that this is not the only existence - that you have to be rewarded for having lived in this convoluted nightmare that the earth can be.

Where once - the existence of a god was actually used as the Government - people have already admitted that religion is NOT the ideal form of government - and that some type of representation is superior to the brutality that religions wrought in the world.

However - there are still lots of religions that dominate regions of the world - and these people are carefully indoctrinated at an early age =- to except the claims of the religion OR ELSE. This is more likely in areas where education is limited - and poor is the norm.

Educated people - on the other hand - largely reject the claims of religion - and have moved on in the Western world. Those that have not are just ignorant.

[Chas]

The Big Bang is only applicable on an individual star basis when it goes supernova. It doesn't work for the universe. And even then it has to be modified in order to fit supernova physics.

Apparently you don't understand that those two things have nothing to do with each other.

Read a science book.

---

Edit: I hadn't noticed that 13 pages had elapsed.

[The Valkyrie]

The Big Bang is only applicable on an individual star basis when it goes supernova. It doesn't work for the universe. And even then it has to be modified in order to fit supernova physics.

Apparently you don't understand that those two things have nothing to do with each other.

Read a science book.

---

Edit: I hadn't noticed that 13 pages had elapsed.

[Simon Moon]

You're saying that these things are impossible, by the authority of your human understanding and reasoning. We believe in the trinity, but can't logically understand the concept. If we're dealing with God, we're dealing with a being who doesn't always act according to our understanding of how things are supposed to be.

Well...

Isn't that convenient?

Whenever your god runs up against something that defies logic and evidence, you just get to say, "we're dealing with a being who doesn't always act according to our understanding of how things are supposed to be".

Which is just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying "God works in mysterious ways".

Sure, if you make up a magical being that can do anything, you can get him out of logical and evidential dead ends with ease.

Please forgive us if we want a bit more than magic to explain reality.

[jeroenymo]

Another shot at the theistic view:
follow this analogy: if a hold a ball at shoulder height and you let it go, it drops to the ground. Why? gravity of course. Gravity is the name we have given to the phenomenon of the attraction of objects with mass. But it is just a concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans%E2%80%93Dicke_theory)

In the same way we could look at what theists describe as miracles. They created the concept of a god to describe things that are very unlikely to happen and have a advantaguous outcome. God is the concept in the minds of theists that atheists often describe as luck.

Gravity and God are equally real. Atheists simply call the latter by a different name: luck.

funnily enough, in the online gaming world luck is also starting to become a deity called RNGesus. Whenever luck is required in a game, gamers like to phraise to RNGesus for a good outcome. This is more to redicule religion than to become one, but it shows the point.

Up to this point i did only speak of god in the general sense, generalizing all religions. If we look at christianity in general however, Jesus comes in the picture. Was Jesus real? I prefer to believe that he did, though taken with a grain of salt. Yes he probably inspired many people because he was magnificent at telling stories, yes he gave people hope when there was none, but no he could not walk on water or turn water in wine. Spoken stories are always exagurated and metaphores, imaginary can get lost and taken literally. Jesus probably rose from the dead in the sense that some of his followers took his place and became just as good as him at inspiring people. However, this doesnt take away that Jesus was the word of God, it justs binds him, just like all of us, to the laws of nature.

[Mudhammam]

Defining God as simply "luck" is fundamentally confused, misleading, and dishonest.

[Vicki Q]

Another shot at the theistic view:
follow this analogy: if a hold a ball at shoulder height and you let it go, it drops to the ground.

<snip>

However, this doesnt take away that Jesus was the word of God, it justs binds him, just like all of us, to the laws of nature.

Apologies- it's been a while since your post, so I may not be giving you the chance to notice this.

I don't think you may be confusing effect with ontology. Gravity exists in that the scientific model used appears to be a reasonable summary law of observed data. God exists as a sentient entity.

Where we might agree to a degree is in the concept of miracle. Post-enlightenment debate has viewed miracle as God 'interfering in the normal laws on nature'. However the NT concept, aligning with modern science, is that these things occur within the 'laws of nature', but point us to a better understanding of what those laws are (i.e. pointing to God).

The problem with your last paragraph is that it runs up against history. Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership. And you still have a massive problem when normal historical analysis is done.

It is absolutely clear that Jesus contemporaries strongly believed that he did things for which there was and there remains no explanation within current understanding. And the rise of the Early Church with the beliefs that they had defies alternative historical explanation. The idea of Jesus teaching living on wouldn't, for example, explain why the disciples believed the general resurrection had been split into two parts, or why they believed the Kingdom of God had finally arrived.

[abaris]

It is absolutely clear that Jesus contemporaries strongly believed that he did things for which there was and there remains no explanation within current understanding.

No. it isn't absolutely clear. Only the gospels, written decades later, speak about it.

Outside authors - at best - acknowledge that there is a group called christians. And the only one directly pointing at Jesus, Josephus, is a known forgery. The Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century.