Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tackattack]

---

Your view of modern Christianity is still very skewed. Don't kill unjustly, love thy neighbor, don't lie, steal or cheat, obey the laws of mankind, etc.. I still can't see how you can honestly hold your view that modern Christians follow immoral rules. Anyways back to point.

Secular law already has much better versions of those same rules. For instance, murdering a neighbouring tribe for having a different religion is no longer considered just. There is no law demanding that you unecessarily feel a particular emotion about your neighbours, replaced by much better, more detailed rules keeping your actions fair and just, eg, laws against them blasting music in the middle of the night.

The rain in the scenario is just what happens without God. Imagine in avast nothingness there is only one light. You can be in the light or in the cold. Secondly the hell of the Bible was actually intended for a place for the fallen angels, not intended to be our place of damnation. It just happens to be all that's left if we're not in his light.

Bullshit. The bible does not say anything like the above. It specifically says that hell is a real thing, not an absence of things. God actively sends people there, not for nothingness (he could have left them peacefully dead for that), but for torment, gnashing of teeth, and suphuric pits of fire. It's also not very good to just say that it's ok, since he's only torturing angels, not us. That's like saying it's ok, Hitler's only killing those other people, not us. Hey, why did an entire third of the angels decide that god is too fucked up to stay with? They left the remaining .666 behind to stay with god. What's up with that?

Thirdly, each in faith according to their portion. If you're truly honestly unbiasly looking at a belief in God and don't see the evidence then it's not unreasonable that you don't believe at all.

Even the believers don't see any real evidence. That's why they use a combination of faith (believing something without any evidence) and making the facts fit, like when reading horoscopes and seeing ways that it applies to you personally. Anyone can do that with anything. All one has to do is be convinced that the bible/horoscope is telling you the truth.

---

@ KichigaiNeko.....
I have read it. I'm not going any further than that.

@SN-Actually it does say just that [hide]Matthew 25:40-41 (King James Version)
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:[.hide]
It's actually quite clear that those who live a charitable, nurturing and loving compassionate life will be seated on his right and will inherit the kingdom, those that live selfishly shall "go away into everlasting punishment".

Even in this context you can read easily that it's a banishment from his presence, and from Jesus' teachings it's obviously not preferred that we live this way.

As far as the .666 - I didn't know you were a conspiracy theorist... there's a club here on AF for that.

You can contend that there's no "real" evidence all you like. Some people do see real evidence, you're entitled to your materialistic world view. You make a good point about rationalization. That also boils down to truly admitting who you are and why you are that way. I can see why you think that a collection of deterministic molecules that form me rationalizes. I might say the same thing about the intellectualizing of atheists, if I thought it were true. I'm comfortable acknowledging that a lot of atheists really don't have any underlying daddy issues, or were all raped by priests when younger. I also acknowledge that it's obvious some do, and that's their only deterministic motivations. I allow that some people can actually think for themselves and come to their own conclusion rationally, logically and intellectually.

[Welsh cake]

1-love = a conditional and mercurial intense affection for another person based on familial or personal ties
God's Love = unconditional and self sacrificing-patience, kindness, truth seeking. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It's not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs and it never fails. Always seeks the best interests and a closeness with those who accept that love.

Get rid of the "God is Great" rant and you'll find both definitions are relatively the same with regards to the concept of course there's the exception of the absurd notions that its truth seeking and there being 'unconditional love'; love is not a quest for knowledge but it is quintessentially conditional. Generally you can't love those who intend to harm and/or kill you and your family, to suggest otherwise is completely irrational and nonsensical.

Always seeks the best interests and a closeness with those who accept that love.

Well, I guess even you accept that love IS conditional so you've failed to make your case of God's Love being greater than the predefined concept of love itself here. Your definition of the concept needs work.

And with respects to the Biblical character of God, he is known to be jealous deity, he's often a wrathful tyrant, easily provoked, and goes as far as to actively punish non-believers for not accepting him/his son for *all eternity*.

That's not love tack, not even close.

2- What you didn't like the abridged version? Well what I was pointing out was that it wasn't through neglect . It was intentional.. God thought eternity was important enough to let us know about it, by sending a part of himself to suffer human intolerance, ignorance and hatred and then die horribly for the glimmer of hope that mankind would listen. In the end, from an omnificent perspective, it will be worth it.

First of all the prospect of sacrificing one to one's self as a loophole for arbitrary rules one set up is ludicrous. Second, its immoral, its simply not just to slaughter an innocent person through neglect for another's crimes. Third, why did there have to be a sacrifice anyway, couldn't have the big bad deity simply screw his own rules and just learn to FORGIVE everyone? And fourth, Jesus Christ didn't stay dead and/or in Hell for our sins! That's not a sacrifice. He lasted, what, three days and then chickened out. As far as fictional characters go at least Doomguy stayed in Hell for our mistakes and God's demonic blunders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twQ8GsdGZfo

That right there is a sacrifice - the doomed space marine from a video game is a superior character infinitely more worthy of respect and reverence than "I don’t wanna die! I wanna be at the right hand of my all-mighty daddy!" Jesus depicted in the NT.

As for me and most christians God is a superior being or why else would we worship Him. I'm not going to worship anything that I'm an equal to, that would be foolish, I believe it would be quite foolish to worship anything less than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being and my reasoning is that only a being that fits that description can make promises and then keep them.

It would be foolish to worship anyone or anything that murders inferior beings such as us indiscriminately.

God as creator would naturally be outside of His creation and not bound by the natural laws He put into place so that He could have control over it. If God is not outside of His creation then He to would be bound to the same natural laws and not have control over the universe.

1. How do you know God is outside creation?
2. What is outside creation?
3. How is God not affected by natural laws outside creation?
4. How does God actually control the natural laws of the universe?

So IMO the worship that is given to God and the reason for that worship is evidence that God is a superior being.

And those who don't worship your particular subscribed religious beliefs are evidence of what exactly?

[tackattack]

---

1-love = a conditional and mercurial intense affection for another person based on familial or personal ties
God's Love = unconditional and self sacrificing-patience, kindness, truth seeking. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It's not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs and it never fails. Always seeks the best interests and a closeness with those who accept that love.

Get rid of the "God is Great" rant and you'll find both definitions are relatively the same with regards to the concept of course there's the exception of the absurd notions that its truth seeking and there being 'unconditional love'; love is not a quest for knowledge but it is quintessentially conditional. Generally you can't love those who intend to harm and/or kill you and your family, to suggest otherwise is completely irrational and nonsensical.

Always seeks the best interests and a closeness with those who accept that love.

Well, I guess even you accept that love IS conditional so you've failed to make your case of God's Love being greater than the predefined concept of love itself here. Your definition of the concept needs work.

And with respects to the Biblical character of God, he is known to be jealous deity, he's often a wrathful tyrant, easily provoked, and goes as far as to actively punish non-believers for not accepting him/his son for *all eternity*.

That's not love tack, not even close.

2- What you didn't like the abridged version? Well what I was pointing out was that it wasn't through neglect . It was intentional.. God thought eternity was important enough to let us know about it, by sending a part of himself to suffer human intolerance, ignorance and hatred and then die horribly for the glimmer of hope that mankind would listen. In the end, from an omnificent perspective, it will be worth it.

First of all the prospect of sacrificing one to one's self as a loophole for arbitrary rules one set up is ludicrous. Second, its immoral, its simply not just to slaughter an innocent person through neglect for another's crimes. Third, why did there have to be a sacrifice anyway, couldn't have the big bad deity simply screw his own rules and just learn to FORGIVE everyone? And fourth, Jesus Christ didn't stay dead and/or in Hell for our sins! That's not a sacrifice. He lasted, what, three days and then chickened out. As far as fictional characters go at least Doomguy stayed in Hell for our mistakes and God's demonic blunders:

That right there is a sacrifice - the doomed space marine from a video game is a superior character infinitely more worthy of respect and reverence than "I don’t wanna die! I wanna be at the right hand of my all-mighty daddy!" Jesus depicted in the NT.

---

1- The conditions aren't imposed on the part of the creator, they're due to the reciprocal dynamic of exchanging love. If my time here proves anything it's that love can be accepted or rejected, and reciprocated love still feels like love from the giving side, but not from the receiving side. I still say the unconditional part stands.

2- I agree on your point of your perception of the Biblical character of God, that's not love, that's manipulation, personification and misconception.

3- Anything worth having is worth sacrificing for. God does forgive everyone, what about that aren't you getting. He sacrificed for sinners and saints alike. His sacrifice wasn't just his death on the cross that was just the end of it. If you can't see the nobility of self-sacrifice through literally dying to give everyone a chance at eternal happiness, I don't think I can make you see anything different. IMO it seems like you're intentionally wearing blinders though.

[fr0d0]

We consider everything. We apply what fits.

And we can definitely see how accurate that interpretation is because God has only one working model in the world.

He does.

How can you distinguish traits of a being whose existence is indistinguishable?

It isn't

Consensus means everyone agrees

and they do. Please prove otherwise

there are Christians who have wildly varied definitions of God and his attributes. Just look at how the Westboro Baptist Church interprets divine intentions versus that of a Unitarian Church. Apply that to all the other denominations which pick and choose what doctrines and attributes they want to apply to their God and you have a drastically different picture.

Similarly, If I studied fish and monkeys expecting to find monkeys traits I'd find monkeys that were not monkey like at all.

I'm not talking about having a vague interpretation of "omnimax being", I'm talking about specific attributes and definitions for this God and his motives.

Go read up on them then

Is there an opposing force that is equal to God influencing the universe?

Yes. You seemed to agree saying that forces balance to zero.

<cut irrelevant monologue about the scientific method>

You say that his attributes are what we've worked out so far. Fine. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this premise. How then, can you claim that he is capable of anything outside these parameters?

So... entertaining my premise, you're asking how I can claim God is capable of anything outside the parameters of God? You're nuts!

In addition,

How would you distinguish an all-powerful being from a really powerful one?
How would a being that thinks he is all-knowing find that he is actually all-knowing or not?

You're gonna have to consult your fairies for those I'm afraid.

How can you say that you can logically apply parameters to such an entity when such parameters are illogical when paired together?

I'm sorry, I missed the part where any of the parameters were proven to be illogical when paired together. Perhaps you've adopted some faith position on this you'd like to share.

Being a physical object with known causes, we can give evidential proofs as to the formation of the orange colouring.

In the static model of God, we can demonstrate logical progression to each attribute similarly.

And what is the account for why these attributes are observable? Why does God put forth the attributes you're seeing, rather than any others?

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope again.

<cut more philosophy of science>

3. Given that there are certain criteria for God, is there anything that can happen that would convince you that there is no God in control of all this? I'm talking about an event so unlike his nature that it would negate your version of his alleged attributes.

I don't see how. Belief isn't external but internal. At any point I could decide not to believe which would be extremely minor in comparison, but fundamentally crucial to my world view.

Ok, what would a catalyst for such an event be?

you're obsessed with this catalyst, and refuse to entertain the idea of gradual intellectual deduction, which I'm telling you over again is the only catalyst.

[Scented Nectar]

It's OK You beautiful bloom.....

Beautiful? Thank you, my flower is blushing! It's a photo of a flower in the Allen Garden greenhouse in Toronto some years ago. I think it's some sort of Brunfelsia, and out of those, I think it's one of the species often given the common name 'Yesterday Today & Tomorrow'. It was fragrant and made me all happy and stuff.

He doesn't red his 'Good Book' obliviously!!

Obliviously might be exactly how he's reading it.

---

@SN-Actually it does say just that

---

Matthew 25:40-41 (King James Version)40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

---

It's actually quite clear that those who live a charitable, nurturing and loving compassionate life will be seated on his right and will inherit the kingdom, those that live selfishly shall "go away into everlasting punishment".

Even in this context you can read easily that it's a banishment from his presence, and from Jesus' teachings it's obviously not preferred that we live this way.

Yeah, absence PLUS EVERLASTING FIRE!!!!!!! Who cares if absence goes along with it? The eternal torture doesn't somehow go away, if even your version of the biblegod story is to be believed. So what if he prepared it for the bad angels. Don't they run the place or something? Anyways, no one is saying the bad angels are not said to be there too. What the bible DOES say, is that humans get sent there eternally, after they die, if god doesn't like what the humans did/thought on earth enough.

As far as the .666 - I didn't know you were a conspiracy theorist... there's a club here on AF for that.

I'm not one. I just like to see whether any xtians are weird about that number. I saw a youtube the other day that mentioned 2/3 (.666) of the angels remaining, which made me laugh. I have always wondered why more 666 fearers don't also fear the fraction, 2/3rds. Maybe it's because fundie schools are not that big on real learning or something.

I can see why you think that a collection of deterministic molecules that form me rationalizes. I might say the same thing about the intellectualizing of atheists, if I thought it were true. I'm comfortable acknowledging that a lot of atheists really don't have any underlying daddy issues, or were all raped by priests when younger. I also acknowledge that it's obvious some do, and that's their only deterministic motivations. I allow that some people can actually think for themselves and come to their own conclusion rationally, logically and intellectually.

What on earth are you going on about with 'daddy issues' and 'raped by priests' and 'deterministic motivations' stuff? You've lost me there, and even rereading that paragraph I can't figure out what you are talking about. However, it did remind me of this very funny video on youtube (I think I'm becoming a youtube spammer). I'll put it in hiding for off-topicness.

---

[youtube]4DFTmBrMYPw[/youtube]

---

[ecolox]

Welsh Cake: And with respects to the Biblical character of God, he is known to be jealous deity, he's often a wrathful tyrant, easily provoked, and goes as far as to actively punish non-believers for not accepting him/his son for *all eternity*.

The nature of people who reject the holy God is such that they deserve to burn in hell forever and ever. These are the sorts of people who would harm undeserving others without a second thought (if they had the opportunity (e.g. no punishments from authorities)).

You call yourself an atheist, but would you really reject THE embodiment of morality, justice, fair treatment, and so on - when you saw it (i.e. is it a lack of evidence, or is it a matter of hatred)?

Welsh Cake: Third, why did there have to be a sacrifice anyway, couldn't have the big bad deity simply screw his own rules and just learn to FORGIVE everyone?

I am a Christian and I don't believe that Jesus "paid God for my sins". I just can't imagine that God would necessitate that (i.e. require blood, no matter from who or what) --- e.g. is Jesus more forgiving than God? - are they not of one spirit? I believe Jesus died because that's what God would've done under those circumstances - he was a complete witness to humankind as to the nature of God. The point of it was that God would much rather have people turn from evil than have to punish them, but in the end evil must be smitten - the innocent have to be relieved.

[Godscreated]

God as creator would naturally be outside of His creation and not bound by the natural laws He put into place so that He could have control over it. If God is not outside of His creation then He to would be bound to the same natural laws and not have control over the universe.

1. How do you know God is outside creation?
2. What is outside creation?
3. How is God not affected by natural laws outside creation?
4. How does God actually control the natural laws of the universe?

1. God is omnipresent meaning He can be anywhere and everywhere at the same moment.
2. God is not part of creation itself He is the Creator.
3. God is spirit He is unlike anything in His creation the laws He set up were for that which is created not for the creator to be bound by.
4. God created these laws and they are therefore able to be controlled by their creator.

So IMO the worship that is given to God and the reason for that worship is evidence that God is a superior being.

And those who don't worship your particular subscribed religious beliefs are evidence of what exactly?

Others who choose not to believe as I do are only evidence of nonbelief no more no less. I do not worship a belief I worship the One I believe in period.

[tackattack]

---

It's OK You beautiful bloom.....

Beautiful? Thank you, my flower is blushing! It's a photo of a flower in the Allen Garden greenhouse in Toronto some years ago. I think it's some sort of Brunfelsia, and out of those, I think it's one of the species often given the common name 'Yesterday Today & Tomorrow'. It was fragrant and made me all happy and stuff.

He doesn't red his 'Good Book' obliviously!!

Obliviously might be exactly how he's reading it.

---

@SN-Actually it does say just that Matthew 25:40-41 (King James Version)40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
It's actually quite clear that those who live a charitable, nurturing and loving compassionate life will be seated on his right and will inherit the kingdom, those that live selfishly shall "go away into everlasting punishment".

Even in this context you can read easily that it's a banishment from his presence, and from Jesus' teachings it's obviously not preferred that we live this way.

Yeah, absence PLUS EVERLASTING FIRE!!!!!!! Who cares if absence goes along with it? The eternal torture doesn't somehow go away, if even your version of the biblegod story is to be believed. So what if he prepared it for the bad angels. Don't they run the place or something? Anyways, no one is saying the bad angels are not said to be there too. What the bible DOES say, is that humans get sent there eternally, after they die, if god doesn't like what the humans did/thought on earth enough.

As far as the .666 - I didn't know you were a conspiracy theorist... there's a club here on AF for that.

I'm not one. I just like to see whether any xtians are weird about that number. I saw a youtube the other day that mentioned 2/3 (.666) of the angels remaining, which made me laugh. I have always wondered why more 666 fearers don't also fear the fraction, 2/3rds. Maybe it's because fundie schools are not that big on real learning or something.

I can see why you think that a collection of deterministic molecules that form me rationalizes. I might say the same thing about the intellectualizing of atheists, if I thought it were true. I'm comfortable acknowledging that a lot of atheists really don't have any underlying daddy issues, or were all raped by priests when younger. I also acknowledge that it's obvious some do, and that's their only deterministic motivations. I allow that some people can actually think for themselves and come to their own conclusion rationally, logically and intellectually.

What on earth are you going on about with 'daddy issues' and 'raped by priests' and 'deterministic motivations' stuff? You've lost me there, and even rereading that paragraph I can't figure out what you are talking about. However, it did remind me of this very funny video on youtube (I think I'm becoming a youtube spammer). I'll put it in hiding for off-topicness.

---

That was a very macabre video and and I chuckled a little until the end. That last paragraph, I'll rephrase.
You're saying that a majority of Christians are rationalizing their God concept, correct? You're also saying that the underlying cause is absolutely unfounded on anything percieved, in any way, and thus everything that follows are just Christians wanting to believe and thus fabricating a belief around that, correct? If they're both correct I'm agreeing that some do. I'm also pointing out that the same intellectualization could be made by me stating "Tons of atheists just have daddy or childhood issues and hate God, that's why they try so hard to ignore/deny theism." I don't happen to believe that it's the case of a majority, but some for sure do simply hate blindly. Just as some theists have faith blindly. I allow that some people can actually think for themselves and come to their own conclusion rationally, logically and intellectually from direct experiences on both sides of the coin.

[Scented Nectar]

That was a very macabre video and and I chuckled a little until the end. That last paragraph, I'll rephrase.
You're saying that a majority of Christians are rationalizing their God concept, correct? You're also saying that the underlying cause is absolutely unfounded on anything percieved, in any way, and thus everything that follows are just Christians wanting to believe and thus fabricating a belief around that, correct? If they're both correct I'm agreeing that some do. I'm also pointing out that the same intellectualization could be made by me stating "Tons of atheists just have daddy or childhood issues and hate God, that's why they try so hard to ignore/deny theism." I don't happen to believe that it's the case of a majority, but some for sure do simply hate blindly. Just as some theists have faith blindly. I allow that some people can actually think for themselves and come to their own conclusion rationally, logically and intellectually from direct experiences on both sides of the coin.

Macabre is a good word for that sort of humour. I like sick and twisted stuff like that.

With the cause of god belief, the perception of an emotional experience is quite real, but its interpretation as coming from an outside god source is unreal, not exactly unfounded, since it is based on a very real emotion of 'being saved', 'letting jesus into your heart', 'feeling the power of the lord', blabbity blah blah. A book on cults long ago, called those powerful moments of awe 'snapping', which was also the title of the book. As for ignoring/denying god, only a believer can do that. An ignorer or denier still believes. They are just angry or whatever. Since atheists don't believe, we only get angry at what god is SAID to be like. Just like hating the main fictional character of a book, which in fact is exactly the case with biblegod, since it is a fictional book and he's the star of it.

[Zen Badger]

Welsh Cake: And with respects to the Biblical character of God, he is known to be jealous deity, he's often a wrathful tyrant, easily provoked, and goes as far as to actively punish non-believers for not accepting him/his son for *all eternity*.

Translated; a petty, petulant,spiteful five year old with an ant farm and a magnifying glass.

The nature of people who reject the holy God is such that they deserve to burn in hell forever and ever. These are the sorts of people who would harm undeserving others without a second thought (if they had the opportunity (e.g. no punishments from authorities)).

And don't forget, we eat babies too

You call yourself an atheist, but would you really reject THE embodiment of morality, justice, fair treatment, and so on - when you saw it (i.e. is it a lack of evidence, or is it a matter of hatred)?

If I saw it I would accept it. How could I not? Evidence has been presented. I'm skeptical, not obtuse.
On the other hand, despite ALL the evidence for Evolution and an old Universe, creationists still maintain
the biblical account to be true. Now that is obtuse.
P.s your god embodies none of those qualities, quite the opposite in fact.

Welsh Cake: Third, why did there have to be a sacrifice anyway, couldn't have the big bad deity simply screw his own rules and just learn to FORGIVE everyone?

I am a Christian and I don't believe that Jesus "paid God for my sins". I just can't imagine that God would necessitate that (i.e. require blood, no matter from who or what) --- e.g. is Jesus more forgiving than God? - are they not of one spirit? I believe Jesus died because that's what God would've done under those circumstances - he was a complete witness to humankind as to the nature of God. The point of it was that God would much rather have people turn from evil than have to punish them, but in the end evil must be smitten - the innocent have to be relieved.

Well, that is what your religion maintains, who are you to question it?