A good reason not to believe in God

[BlackUnicorn]

I'd usually let their performance dictate my opinion, with the recession and now quake there is no chance of seeing how National would have done compared to labour.

They have the same bureaucracy under the table, just different people at the top. Labour would have given the rich a massive tax hike.

[theVOID]

Somewhat the same, but less of it.

Sure they would probably raise taxes for the rich, but it wouldn't be massive and rather than use it to eliminate the deficit they'd probably waste it stupid social/cultural departments and expensive train-sets like Kiwirail.

[fr0d0]

@ VOID Right I've heard that point before and don't find it convincing over Divine Simplicity, which you skated over briefly there. Every proposed cause has to begin from simplicity. Otherwise nothing came from something. Complexity just doesn't make sense there.

So all of this complexity we observe is postulated (scientifically) to have emanated from a simple cause. This potential comprising in ultimate simplicity the code for the complexity --> Divine Simplicity.

The impression I have is that God is everywhere and everywhen yet he is not temporally or spatially afflicted by either, time and space do not change the state of affairs that God is - would you agree?

In my understanding God is not limited. In a manner of speaking, you could say that Jesus is God because everything existent emanates from God. But that's not what we call anything in physical reality, because God entails far more than the physical. In this case, we're saying that God manifests himself fully within the person so making that person also fully God. Clearly God is limiting himself severely as man. But never as God. The point of Jesus is to demonstrate man in his full potential together with God. The upshot being a means for every human to have access to the same.

[Captain Scarlet]

@ Scarlet: I'm tired of our dance. I have no idea where you're going and have lost interest in following you around this particular may pole.

Me too! Is it because I asked you to make an argument? Which you still have failed to do.

1. Black swan fallacy, we know of no acausal actions taken by actors, that does not necessitate there are none, you could make an effective bayesian argument from this, or an argument from best explanation (specifically in terms of consistency with background knowledge) but you cannot necessitate this is the case.
2. There are acausal quantum effects (to the best of our scientific understanding).
3. Necessitates that time always existed, this is contrary to our best scientific understandings.

I am sure the words could be strengthened to better make the argument, I indicated it is only backed up by all of reality and therefore I should have stuck probably in there. But to get a debate going, which apparently is a dance around a may pole, it would be quite nice to hear how this atemporal frozen god can act.

On the other points you raise. I am not sure what you mean by acausal quantum effects. We know for example virtual particle pairs appear and disappear, but there appearance is still caused by instability in the vaccuum, and the disapperance caused by anhilation with each other. I'm not sure why I would need need to claim time always existed?

[Edwardo Piet]

No Evie... if you surmise that there are two of him, then you must equally surmise that because we state that a glass of milk is 100% milk and 100% liquid that there are indeed 2 glasses, one full of milk and one full of liquid. Such is the illogicality of your summation.

No, because it was you that claimed that there were two Jesuses in order to escape the contradiction of him being both mortal and immortal. However, you never claimed that there were two glasses, you only mentioned one. I'm going by your claims.

[Rokcet Scientist]

...: watch the news.

[Minimalist]

No Evie... if you surmise that there are two of him, then you must equally surmise that because we state that a glass of milk is 100% milk and 100% liquid that there are indeed 2 glasses, one full of milk and one full of liquid. Such is the illogicality of your summation.

No, because it was you that claimed that there were two Jesuses in order to escape the contradiction of him being both mortal and immortal. However, you never claimed that there were two glasses, you only mentioned one. I'm going by your claims.

Frods is a bit of a docetist. Luckily for him they stopped burning those poor bastards at the stake centuries ago.

[fr0d0]

No, because it was you that claimed that there were two Jesuses in order to escape the contradiction of him being both mortal and immortal. However, you never claimed that there were two glasses, you only mentioned one. I'm going by your claims.

No Ev. I said there was one Jesus and one glass of milk. You split Jesus into two parts, and I simply pointed out that you would have to split the glass into two if you were going to use the same logic.

[Edwardo Piet]

Jesus the mortal man and Jesus the immortal God are not the same thing.

^

You say that Jesus the mortal man, and Jesus the immortal God are not the same thing. You are saying that there are two different Jesuses, one mortal and a man and one immortal and a God.

[fr0d0]

it would be quite nice to hear how this atemporal frozen god can act.

Frozen?? The way I understand it it's the other way around. We're frozen in time/ 'constrained', whilst an atemporal entity isn't bound by time. The atemporal entity is free to act in time and out of time, it is not constrained. Atemporal and temporal are not mutually exclusive. Only temporality is limited.

---

Jesus the mortal man and Jesus the immortal God are not the same thing.

^

You say that Jesus the mortal man, and Jesus the immortal God are not the same thing. You are saying that there are two different Jesuses, one mortal and a man and one immortal and a God.

Yes, but it's all the one Jesus.