Isnt God kind of childish/egotistical?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

There is no logic in dissmising God. You claim God's existence is on the same line as a boogeyman hiding in the closet. Let me ask you. Which one do you think is more probable of existing?

To answer your question: I think both are equally probable.
To ask a question in response to your statement: "There is no logic in dismissing God." Then I have to ask: Why is there no logic in dismissing God?

[solja247]

To answer your question: I think both are equally probable.
To ask a question in response to your statement: "There is no logic in dismissing God." Then I have to ask: Why is there no logic in dismissing God?

The probability of God's existence is more likely than unlikely.

FSM has no likelyhood of existing. We just cant logically disprove it.

The fine tuning and cosmological arguements both increase the likelyhood of God existing. You can say I disagree but the thing is these two arguements prove Gods existence is more probable than FSM.

[Edwardo Piet]

The probability of God's existence is more likely than unlikely.

How so?

FSM has no likelyhood of existing.

So you've disproved it have you? When?

The fine tuning and cosmological arguements both increase the likelyhood of God existing.

They get absolutely no-where other than make things more complicated actually. Why? Because God would have to be even more complex and improbable than the fine-tuned universe itself to exist without an explanation. If the universe needs an explanation and a big one, then God needs an explanation for the same reason - and an even bigger one because he supposedly created the complex universe.

[theophilus]

When the Israelites were around, back in the not so good old days, there wars a lot of funny religious practices, such as, sacrificing your first born son to Molech.

Objection!

Provide evidence for your claim. And by evidence we do not mean the bible or any writings that use the bible as their base.

Molech
Molech (mō'lek) [key]or Moloch (mō'lok) [key], Canaanite god of fire to whom children were offered in sacrifice; he is also known as an Assyrian god. He is attested as early as the 3d millennium B.C., although most known references to him come from the later period represented by the Hebrew Bible, according to which Solomon and later Ahaz introduced the worship of him into Judah. He had a sanctuary at Tophet, in the valley of Hinnom S of Jerusalem. Milcom may be identifiable with Molech.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Read more: Molech — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/m...z0wJOGdfMc

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/m...z0wJM3cDgH

The Bible has no contradictions?

Explain all these then please.. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...tions.html

Here is where you can examine the other side of the issue:

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic...tions.html

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/g...euteronomy

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The probability of God's existence is more likely than unlikely.

I don't see that as being the case. I have no reason whatsoever to see the christian god's existance as being more or less likely than any other god or fantasy I or others can come up with.

FSM has no likelyhood of existing. We just cant logically disprove it.

Then how can God have any greater likelyhood of existing than the FSM.

The fine tuning and cosmological arguements both increase the likelyhood of God existing. You can say I disagree but the thing is these two arguements prove Gods existence is more probable than FSM.

The cosmological arguement, such that as I understand it when it was explained to me fully on another thread, does not explain in any way the likelyhood of the existance of any such being - especially which being it is consdering that the Universe is more than 13 billion years old and the concept of a christian god is only a few millenia old and that concept has changed a great deal over over that time based on social norms and differing living conditions. The fact is, the cosmological arguement doesn't explain anything. It attempts to explain that the universe is created because of a 'first cause' but fails to make any logical connection to any actual 'first cause' and what made it based on anything.
As such, the Flying Spagetti Monster, despite being a far more recent concept, is just as likely.

[solja247]

They get absolutely no-where other than make things more complicated actually. Why? Because God would have to be even more complex and improbable than the fine-tuned universe itself to exist without an explanation. If the universe needs an explanation and a big one, then God needs an explanation for the same reason - and an even bigger one because he supposedly created the complex universe.

Complicated but not improbable.
You can ask God when you get to heaven.

---

I don't see that as being the case. I have no reason whatsoever to see the christian god's existance as being more or less likely than any other god or fantasy I or others can come up with.

I never said what God, I said a Creator. There is evidence for a Creator of the universe.

The cosmological arguement, such that as I understand it when it was explained to me fully on another thread, does not explain in any way the likelyhood of the existance of any such being - especially which being it is consdering that the Universe is more than 13 billion years old and the concept of a christian god is only a few millenia old and that concept has changed a great deal over over that time based on social norms and differing living conditions.

I dont see your point. Lets throw Christianity out the window, for the time being. An existence of a Creator IS more probable than something imaginary, like FSM.
Why would our understand of God be the same of mileniums? Dont you think the concept would change as we got more inteligent and smarter?

The fact is, the cosmological arguement doesn't explain anything. It attempts to explain that the universe is created because of a 'first cause' but fails to make any logical connection to any actual 'first cause' and what made it based on anything.

Its a philosphical arguement, not a scientific arguement (although it can be made a scientific arguement) we dont need to know everything about the first cause, how it got there, or its birthday, just that the universe had a cause for its beggining. You would agree with that?

As such, the Flying Spagetti Monster, despite being a far more recent concept, is just as likely.

How so?

[Minimalist]

Jospehus wrote about Jesus.

Early xtian writers forged a passage in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" which represented 4th century theology. The probable forger was Eusebius who was the first to find and utilize this marvelous historical reference....WHICH NO OTHER EARLIER XTIAN WRITER SEEMED TO KNOW ABOUT.

I realize that believing in jesus-shit takes a bit of gullibility but to hang your hat on forgery and pretend it is real is lowering the bar below the floor.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I never said what God, I said a Creator. There is evidence for a Creator of the universe.

God or creator or whatever. It's rebranding the same idea.

I dont see your point. Lets throw Christianity out the window, for the time being. An existence of a Creator IS more probable than something imaginary, like FSM.
Why would our understand of God be the same of mileniums? Dont you think the concept would change as we got more inteligent and smarter?

I think that if a creator existed and he wanted to give us any inkling of his existance or even proclamations of what we should and should not do, then there would be only one holy book written in the entire world by a incomprehensibly vast intelligence and eloquence unrivaled by any human being. I think that his presence and will would not be up for interpretation in the written book and there wouldn't be mountains of evidence that the universe could have even gotten this way without a creator.
Instead, none of those things are even remotely true. No being we could even identify as divine has ever walked this earth or at least left any trace of that presence.

Its a philosphical arguement, not a scientific arguement (although it can be made a scientific arguement) we dont need to know everything about the first cause, how it got there, or its birthday, just that the universe had a cause for its beggining. You would agree with that?

I don't find philisophical arguements useful. Perhaps my mind just isn't geared to make that kind of arguement or that line of reasoning. As far as the beginning of the universe is concerned, humankind has become aware through our scientific quests for knowledge through our most sensitive tools to become aware of how the universe existed in its first moments with theories based on that evidence all the way up to and including the singularity that was the true beginning of the universe as we understand it. Anything beyond that point is purely conjecture, but there are theories about how that singularity could arise due to quantum mechanics as well (which also comes into play well after the universe effectively ends) but it's still just hypothosis at this stage.
Even if you consider that to be the territory of the 'first cause' - adding god to the equation still belies an enormous and unnecessarily complex being before there was even a 'there' there and all arguements point out that this creator is 'infinate' or 'eternal' but for some reason the universe cannot be 'infinate' or 'eternal.' Which partly goes into the failing of that arguement.

But to answer your question, I would have to say that that answer is completely unknown and therefore cannot be answered at this time. As such, I cannot agree that such a thing is true or not.

How so?

Because I have no reason to believe that all modern religions and the gods aren't figments of our imagination in much the same manner as the flying spagetti monster. Neither you or I can say for certain that it couldn't become a true, full blown religion at some point in time in the future that's given just as much credence than your faith or anyone else's.

[solja247]

Early xtian writers forged a passage in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" which represented 4th century theology. The probable forger was Eusebius who was the first to find and utilize this marvelous historical reference....WHICH NO OTHER EARLIER XTIAN WRITER SEEMED TO KNOW ABOUT.

I realize that believing in jesus-shit takes a bit of gullibility but to hang your hat on forgery and pretend it is real is lowering the bar below the floor.

At least get your facts straight. there are two quotes of Jospehus which are considered credible and authentic.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

At least get your facts straight. there are two quotes of Jospehus which are considered credible and authentic.

Really? WOW!

Which ones? Considered authentic by whom? I've never heard of any.

I wasn't aware Josephus was accepted as a prime source by any reputable scholars.


However, I stand ready to be corrected. Perhaps you might also like to explain what these authentic quotes infer?