Criticism of Atheism

[TryingtoConvert]

Unless there is some specific reason to question a religious experience, therefore, then we ought to accept that it is at least prima facie evidence for the existence of God.[/i] How very subjective and full of bullocks.

I never said it wasn't subjective.  Re-read me earlier post where I made it quite clear that I'm not using this as a proof for anything.  It's merely to show that the person with a religious experience is as justified in trusting that experience as they are in trusting any other experience they have.

The PoC is a fallacy in itself. On the other hand, I am an atheist who experiences the absence of God. Using the PoC that you hold in high regard, it seems to me the world is godless.

I don't doubt that.  Did I imply otherwise?

As far as fallacies go, the PoC suffers from a form of "Affirming the Consequent", which means
1) If A then B
2) B
Therefore:
3) A

In this case it's:
1) If A then A
2) A
Therefore
3) A
It leaves no room for any other possibility.

The argument is also a Subjectivist Fallacy.
1) Q is objectively true (because objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone)
2) Q is subjective.
Therefore:
3) Your argument fails.

It only fails if one assumes the person using this line of reasoning is doing so as a proof of God's existence or as a reason for why someone else should believe.  That is not, as I've stated, my purpose.  It is merely to demonstrate that trusting our religious experiences under the Principle of Credulity is as logical and reasonable a thing to do as trusting any other experience we have in life when there is no reason to think otherwise.

Prima facie

It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

Basically, appearances can be deceptive.

Agreed.

PoC also requires a burden of proof, both for the person having the religious experience and for those that the person who had the religious experience to makes claims about to other individuals. Religious experience arguments for the existence of God are not in the realm of rational inquiry, but into the realm of subjective experience.

Which is precisely why I have not used it for this purpose at all.  I'm not sure why you think I did...

Those who wish to claim they have or are having a religious experience must come to grips of which divine figure/s they are experiencing.

Quite easy to do within Orthodoxy.

If it is an experience within their own tradition or cultural presupposition how do they (or we) know doesn't have some sort of natural but purely psychological bias?

How do we know this about anything?!  This is precisely my point!  There is no way to prove to anyone anything that is experienced by the senses.  There is no way for you to prove to me that you are not a brain in a vat being fed sensory experiences.  Which is why we have no other option besides trusting our experiences when there is no good reason not to.

If that is the case, which most religious experiences are, how does one know it is not a psychological experience brought on from drugs or simple imagination?

Because the person was not experimenting with any drugs and was not utilizing their imagination at the time.  Take these (real) experiences as examples:

“Then, just as I was exhausted and despairing—I had the most wonderful sense of the presence of God.  He was in a particular place in the room about five feet from me—I didn’t look up, but kept my head in my hands and my eyes shut.”  

“I was walking along a long, lonely country road by myself…then the experience came.  It lasted about 20 minutes—I sensed a presence on my right, keeping level with me as I went along. “

“Then, in a very gentle and gradual way, not with a shock at all, it began to dawn on me that I was not alone in the room.  Someone else was there, located fairly precisely about two yards to my right front.  Yet there was no sort of sensory hallucination.  I neither saw him nor heard him in any sense of the word “see” and “hear,” but there he was; I had no doubt about it.”

Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.  What we have here, contrary to what you implied earlier, is not a mere outpouring of emotion, but fairly clear descriptions of a direct awareness of a divine presence.

I’m not saying this is proof of anything or that you should believe in God based upon the supposed experiences of others.  I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief.  Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).  

How does one know it is not just mental saturation of specific religious imagery or outlook?

How does one not know this about the computer in front of them?  The book they're reading?  Pick anything, how can you ever prove to someone else your sensory experience?

The deluded don't know. And that's why they rely on the Principle of Credulity, which is not credible at all.

Oh is that why?  I was curious.

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

"Ask and ye shall receive.  Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and the door shall be opened."

Alright. In this post, I'm going to leave aside everything you just said with the exception of one thing. Yes. I have read the bible. Once, cover to cover, the KJV, which was a grueling task. And again, cover to cover (and the New Testament twice) the NIV. I have read all the so called "lost" books, the book of Mormon and the JW bible. I have researched Buddhism, Shintoism, and Roman, Wicca/Pagan and Egyptian pantheism. And I didn't need a religious experience to want to research any of them. Nor did I have a religious experience by researching any of them.

I research the bible in at least 6 various forms at least 4 days a week. I have tried to study Koine Greek and Modal Logic, both of which escape me. I use Bible Gateway exclusively for biblical research.

I had been a member of a defunct atheist board since 2003 - a Moderator there for 5 years in the Existence of God/s Forum, Moral Foundations & Principles Forum and General Religious Discussions forum. I was Lead Administrator for one year, which means I was in charge of 50-60 Moderators in 31 separate forums. I have been a member of at least a dozen other discussion boards and the old MSN/Yahoo chats. I would make a wager, if I could prove it that I have posted on the internet more than 30,000 times all of which had something to do with religion.

I have been in a face to face debate with a Presbyterian minister that lasted for several months and an email debate with a deacon of the Disciples of Christ. I have been in the oldest Christian church and the biggest Christian church in the UK and stood in awe in both of them.

I have written over 300 pages (in MS Word) and amassed 200 times that from others.

All the above took place since 1997.

Eh...I'll throw in one more.

Until you have {read the bible cover to cover}, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

I'll remember this and discount it for when you decide to talk about something you never personally experienced.

The rest of what I want to say will not be said because there is such a thing as courtesy...something you, as a Christian seem to lack. At any rate, your debate style is one of Christian Superiority Complex (which I have seen numerous times over the years), full of snide remarks, logical fallacies and quite unprofessional; all coming from a person who says he has a bible degree. I hope you're not like this away from the computer.

I will take care of the rest of your current post in due time.

[TryingtoConvert]

Unless there is some specific reason to question a religious experience, therefore, then we ought to accept that it is at least prima facie evidence for the existence of God.[/i] How very subjective and full of bullocks.

I never said it wasn't subjective.  Re-read me earlier post where I made it quite clear that I'm not using this as a proof for anything.  It's merely to show that the person with a religious experience is as justified in trusting that experience as they are in trusting any other experience they have.

The PoC is a fallacy in itself. On the other hand, I am an atheist who experiences the absence of God. Using the PoC that you hold in high regard, it seems to me the world is godless.

I don't doubt that.  Did I imply otherwise?

As far as fallacies go, the PoC suffers from a form of "Affirming the Consequent", which means
1) If A then B
2) B
Therefore:
3) A

In this case it's:
1) If A then A
2) A
Therefore
3) A
It leaves no room for any other possibility.

The argument is also a Subjectivist Fallacy.
1) Q is objectively true (because objective claims have the same truth-value for everyone)
2) Q is subjective.
Therefore:
3) Your argument fails.

It only fails if one assumes the person using this line of reasoning is doing so as a proof of God's existence or as a reason for why someone else should believe.  That is not, as I've stated, my purpose.  It is merely to demonstrate that trusting our religious experiences under the Principle of Credulity is as logical and reasonable a thing to do as trusting any other experience we have in life when there is no reason to think otherwise.

Prima facie

It is logically and intuitively clear that just because a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts that both the notion of the evidence presenting a case in a self-evident manner and the facts actually being facts (which, presumably, would require evidence of at least a minimum degree of quality) can often be reduced to entirely subjective interpretations that are independent of any truthful merit by sufficiently skilled individuals.

Basically, appearances can be deceptive.

Agreed.

PoC also requires a burden of proof, both for the person having the religious experience and for those that the person who had the religious experience to makes claims about to other individuals. Religious experience arguments for the existence of God are not in the realm of rational inquiry, but into the realm of subjective experience.

Which is precisely why I have not used it for this purpose at all.  I'm not sure why you think I did...

Those who wish to claim they have or are having a religious experience must come to grips of which divine figure/s they are experiencing.

Quite easy to do within Orthodoxy.

If it is an experience within their own tradition or cultural presupposition how do they (or we) know doesn't have some sort of natural but purely psychological bias?

How do we know this about anything?!  This is precisely my point!  There is no way to prove to anyone anything that is experienced by the senses.  There is no way for you to prove to me that you are not a brain in a vat being fed sensory experiences.  Which is why we have no other option besides trusting our experiences when there is no good reason not to.

If that is the case, which most religious experiences are, how does one know it is not a psychological experience brought on from drugs or simple imagination?

Because the person was not experimenting with any drugs and was not utilizing their imagination at the time.  Take these (real) experiences as examples:

“Then, just as I was exhausted and despairing—I had the most wonderful sense of the presence of God.  He was in a particular place in the room about five feet from me—I didn’t look up, but kept my head in my hands and my eyes shut.”  

“I was walking along a long, lonely country road by myself…then the experience came.  It lasted about 20 minutes—I sensed a presence on my right, keeping level with me as I went along. “

“Then, in a very gentle and gradual way, not with a shock at all, it began to dawn on me that I was not alone in the room.  Someone else was there, located fairly precisely about two yards to my right front.  Yet there was no sort of sensory hallucination.  I neither saw him nor heard him in any sense of the word “see” and “hear,” but there he was; I had no doubt about it.”

Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely.  What we have here, contrary to what you implied earlier, is not a mere outpouring of emotion, but fairly clear descriptions of a direct awareness of a divine presence.

I’m not saying this is proof of anything or that you should believe in God based upon the supposed experiences of others.  I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief.  Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).  

How does one know it is not just mental saturation of specific religious imagery or outlook?

How does one not know this about the computer in front of them?  The book they're reading?  Pick anything, how can you ever prove to someone else your sensory experience?

The deluded don't know. And that's why they rely on the Principle of Credulity, which is not credible at all.

Oh is that why?  I was curious.

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

"Ask and ye shall receive.  Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and the door shall be opened."

Good grief Sleeper.
If I go outside, come back in and tell you it's raining, by your logic, you would consider me a liar or deceived in any case because you have not experienced my experience in the rain even though you would go outside and stand in the rain experiencing it. But because you can't experience my experience it's not raining when I tell you it is, but it's raining to you because you had your own unique experience of it.

When I have an experience that I'm an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out of my nostrils, you say:

I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief. Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).

I reckon it's time to let loose the psych wards, then.

[NorthernPines]

Um, what exactly is a committed atheist?

I'm committed that there is no God.

That simply makes NO SENSE! How can you be committed to something that you cannot possibly know? That's like saying you're committed to the idea that I'm of a specific ethnicity when in fact you would at best be taking an educated guess. If you're committed to "atheism" how is that any different than being committed to any other idealogy? Like a committed democrat and republican, or a committed capitalist? This just doesn't make one bit of sense for someone claiming to be an atheist on the basis of evidence. You're defining yourself by what you are NOT, and are committed to NOT being something; of course you cannot know if the something you are committed to it not existing actually doesn't exist. This is the mirror image of the super faithful religious person who claims to never have any doubt about the existence of God at. Again, the apple doesn't fall from the tree.

Nonreligious people can't experience the world religiously, but they can experience it spiritually. There's a difference.

Linguistic hairsplitting popularized by people like Bill Maher and Sam Harris.

Don't believe me, there is a brand new book out about the subject:

http://www.christiannontheism.org/members/theconcept

I've seen that before. Pretty stupid if you ask me, but whatever floats their boat.

How would you know if it is stupid before even reading the book? That's like Christians who protested the Golden Compass or the Last Temptation of Christ without ever even seeing either movie to know if they were really "evil" or not. You reject a concept because you reject it? How is that any different than a Christian rejecting another religion, because, well Jesus told them to? I suppose Richard Dawkins is stupid too since he considers himself a Christian atheist as well, then huh? So you're into making up your mind before weighing any other evidence or thinking outside your own personal worldview's box, then? How can you deride religious people for not thinking outside the box when you clearly won't yourself? You're being just as hypocritical as any uptight ultra religious person ever was. I also noticed you refused to answer my question on what is the Biblical definition of "apocalypse"...I wonder why that is?

Edited to add a PS:

I'm not trying to argue for or against belief in God/gods or anything else. I just find your "logic" radically inconsistent. You demand religious people be held to a standard you will not hold yourself too. You reject ideas out of hand, not because you've weighed evidence in favor of one hypothesis or another, but you reject them because they don't tow the party line you've "committed" yourself to. That's okay actually, as long as you're willing to admit that that is what you are doing. Like Fr. Raymond Brown did with his work on the Gospels, but still accepted certain beliefs "through the eyes of faith". At least he was honest, something you don't seem to be doing. You argue against straw men, caricature the Orthodox faith, the Bible, theology, doctrine, ancient thinkers and expect that because it works with some Fundamentalist Protestant, it will work with everyone here. Now you're in a "debate" with a couple of users over "bragging rights" about who has the most "credentials" about religious doctrines and biblical origins, yet I wonder, do you know who the Ecclesiastical redactor of the NT was? (or likely was? Or even what the concept even is?) Do you know what Old Testament Minimalism is? Are you familiar with the theories of Walter Bauer, DF Strauss . . . what are your thoughts on Margaret Barker's magnificent theories on "Popular Judaism" vs ecclesiastical Judaism at the time of Jesus? What do you think of Paul Tillich, Rudolph Bultmaan, Spinoza etc? Do you think they're all idiots too? If so, why? What makes you right and them wrong? Do you even know what I'm talking about? If you've studied the Bible as much as you claim, these names should all be as familiar to you as old friends. Or when you say you studied the Bible do you mean you just attended Bible study classes in Church for a bunch of years, and read the "skeptics guide to the Bible?" Some of the greatest "scholars" of the Bible and religion have been "amateurs" and some of the biggest frauds have had PhD's up the wahoo...

Again, not arguing for or against anything other than honesty in debate and discourse. As the atheist you should be taking the high road (according to atheists that is), yet I see lots of cat calling, little digs and attempts to deliberately get under people's skin because you think you know which buttons to push. Maybe that's what you've done with me too. Perhaps this is all just a "game" and you're not interested in learning or discussing anything at all. I do not know. It's too bad you can be more open to other ideas like Asteriktos is, maybe we could learn something from each other. Alas, I have feeling that isn't going to happen.

No offense intended, and if I've misjudged the situation well, as I said before, I do apologize. Maybe you've just got me on an off week, who knows.

No harm intended, just some observations from my personal perspective.

NP

[Sleeper]

It is unlikely a committed atheist will experience the world religiously.

"Ask and ye shall receive.  Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and the door shall be opened."

Alright. In this post, I'm going to leave aside everything you just said with the exception of one thing.

Pity, because there a few things I'd have liked you to address.  Particularly why you think experience applies to you but not to others; why you are certain you're not a brain in a vat and yet certain that someone's religious experience can only be false.

Yes. I have read the bible. Once, cover to cover, the KJV, which was a grueling task. And again, cover to cover (and the New Testament twice) the NIV. I have read all the so called "lost" books, the book of Mormon and the JW bible. I have researched Buddhism, Shintoism, and Roman, Wicca/Pagan and Egyptian pantheism. And I didn't need a religious experience to want to research any of them. Nor did I have a religious experience by researching any of them.

I research the bible in at least 6 various forms at least 4 days a week. I have tried to study Koine Greek and Modal Logic, both of which escape me. I use Bible Gateway exclusively for biblical research.

I had been a member of a defunct atheist board since 2003 - a Moderator there for 5 years in the Existence of God/s Forum, Moral Foundations & Principles Forum and General Religious Discussions forum. I was Lead Administrator for one year, which means I was in charge of 50-60 Moderators in 31 separate forums. I have been a member of at least a dozen other discussion boards and the old MSN/Yahoo chats. I would make a wager, if I could prove it that I have posted on the internet more than 30,000 times all of which had something to do with religion.

I have been in a face to face debate with a Presbyterian minister that lasted for several months and an email debate with a deacon of the Disciples of Christ. I have been in the oldest Christian church and the biggest Christian church in the UK and stood in awe in both of them.

I have written over 300 pages (in MS Word) and amassed 200 times that from others.

All the above took place since 1997.

Very nice.

Eh...I'll throw in one more.

Until you have {read the bible cover to cover}, your thoughts about it deserve to be completely ignored.

I'll remember this and discount it for when you decide to talk about something you never personally experienced.

Please do.  I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on something when I haven't put in the time to try to understand it.  I don't doubt that you've studied the Bible as much as you have, but I'll be honest and say that I find that pretty impossible to believe considering the childish caricatures you assign to it.

The rest of what I want to say will not be said because there is such a thing as courtesy...something you, as a Christian seem to lack. At any rate, your debate style is one of Christian Superiority Complex (which I have seen numerous times over the years), full of snide remarks, logical fallacies and quite unprofessional; all coming from a person who says he has a bible degree. I hope you're not like this away from the computer.

Not quite sure what this is in reference to, but okay.  One would think the time I'm willing to put in in replying to you would be a quality identified as "courtesy" (especially given that you're clearly unwilling to actually try to understand what I'm trying to say).  I have no debate style because I'm not debating you or anyone.  I don't much care for debate because it results in trying to score points rather than trying to find truth.

I will take care of the rest of your current post in due time.

Please do.

Good grief Sleeper.
If I go outside, come back in and tell you it's raining, by your logic, you would consider me a liar or deceived in any case because you have not experienced my experience in the rain even though you would go outside and stand in the rain experiencing it.

On the contrary, this is what you would do.  My logic works the other way around.  See, I'm not trying to invalidate someone else's experiences (under the reasonable Principle of Credulity) whereas you are.  I'm saying that, under completely normal circumstances, we are all justified in trusting our experiences if there is nothing to make that unreasonable.

But because you can't experience my experience it's not raining when I tell you it is, but it's raining to you because you had your own unique experience of it.

You have this backwards...

When I have an experience that I'm an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out of my nostrils, you say:

I’m saying that their experience can’t be looked upon as invalid and they are justified in their belief. Because we ought to apply the Principle of Credulity to any form of experience (in the sense of “apparent direct awareness”).

I reckon it's time to let loose the psych wards, then.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read some of what I wrote earlier in regards to the Principle of Credulity.  Because if you read it, and think that I implied in any way whatsoever that it would be reasonable for you to believe you're an axe-wielding orc that can shoot fireballs out his nose, I'm really not sure how much longer I can do this.

I've said the same thing a billion times now and I don't know how else to help you see what you're clearly not seeing.

[minasoliman]

Actually they are proven.

For example:

Nothing can not be an existing person, object, substance, place or thing. Thus arguments like non-material, a-spatial ect are idiotic.. You can't exist as a -2 dimensional object or entity either. In fact, spatial capacity and dimension are considered infinite simply because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! You can't have a -1 dimensional space or volume of capacity. Nor can such negative concepts contain anything, have substance, or be existent. When Christians try to apply attributes associated with values of non-existence to a GOD, it almost makes me giggle because they don't even realize it.  You may as well try and argue that your deity exist in a place of non-existence.

Laws of material nature are proven, and I doubt even a theist would be dumb enough to try and argue that their GOD is made of "Nothing", and exists in a place of non-existence. Have fun with that position should you attempt to use it. Those 3 laws I gave you are the very base laws to existence itself. They are impossible to violate, or exist outside of. Worse yet, all minds must be temporally bound because it takes time to do things such as thinking, or even "Creating". There can be no progress without progression of one frame of reference to another. Especially in considering consciousness.

However, one of the worst things about the argument of a GOD is that it takes more cause to support consciousness than unconsciousness.  

And lastly, you didn't address anything. You simply tried to use a Carl Sagan's Dragon argument.

I'm having trouble following your argument here.  Can you clarify?

If you even have read the bible and then put that into context of your argument of "Pushing him away" you would understand the border line fear mongering. And I don't even have to go into the morality argument about murder or killing. Regardless, that is all irrelevant in terms of argument. And your argument here that tries to suggest that I fear that I might be wrong is nonsensical. I actually fear more about being right. Emotional pleading for acceptance of said ideological construct does not grant it any sort of relevance to reality. It's still sheer concept of opinion. And even in the quote above, you still used the fear and carrot tools commonly used in the mechanics of subliminal programming and brainwashing. The use of "Death" and possible there after as an argument, is very subliminally suggestive and rides on people's fears of death. It's almost as bad as the Damnation vs salvation argument.

If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

But I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing.  I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?  How is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.  Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it. 

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

How do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Actually it is not. Especially if you actually pay attention to how it really operates. And one thing to note is that I used to be a Christian, right up until I read books on the mechanics of brainwashing and how it applied to what I was doing when I did advertising for Christian churches. It's something I recommend everyone should do, go read those books on the subject of brainwashing and subliminal programming and sit back and observe things like TV commercials, News, Politics, Advertising, Religion, or anything else for that matter as it doesn't just apply to religion. It's pretty funny when someone tries to manipulate me in sale of a product for example It doesn't work on me anymore

No one is advertising anything to you.  Let me give you some things straight out.  If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.  If you are a Christian, you are to be self-sacrificial even to those who hate you or persecute you.  If you are a Christian, any poor person that needs your help, you are commanded to help, irregardless of who this person is.  If you a Christian, you should treat all as equals and not be deceptive, but straightforward and respectful with others.  No advertising, no superficial clean image, no fear mongering.  Just simply live your life and let others live, but when you live your life, you will suffer.  I don't think that's something comforting to sell, and rather than brainwashing, it's rejected by most brains even among nominal Christians, but that's what a true Christian is.  By your example alone, you should be able to draw people to yourself, not be a Protestant pop-up ad to others.

TTC, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really was a Christian.

[TryingtoConvert]

First: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology.

First: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology.

"Apocalyptic" can mean: etc., etc., etc.

You have been explained to that Jesus' ministry was written in an apocalyptic format, meaning then end of days. I'll tell you further that Revelation was written by a disgruntled Jew AFTER the second temple tear down and means nothing in the way of the end of the world. The end of HIS world, perhaps, as he knew it. It'll be interesting to see your take on that...*chucklin*

Now, if what you mean is that people in the first century expected the world could end at any moment in a very literal and not merely personal sense, you are correct.  When by saying that you imply the modern world has somehow risen above that, you are horribly wrong.  

What I'm saying that Jesus taught the end was near...imminent.

Atheism hasn't made the world ending any less likely,...

Non sequitor.

...it's just removed the supernatural from the equation.

 
When one can show evidence of the supernatural, I have no choice but to revamp my atheism.

At any moment an asteroid could hurtle into the earth, we are warned if we don't change our wicked ways the polar ice-caps will melt, and there is still the threat of world-ending nuclear or biological warfare.

Yes, and many will ascribe this train of thought by God's hand. It was God's hand that actually hurtled the asteroid...blah blah blah.

Now, superstition means: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary .

(Webster's.  The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is you are subject to the biases and philosophies of the dictionary writers, the current OED definition was meaningless.)

I'll agree with that.

You can accuse me and the goat-herder of being superstitious in sense 1(b) only if you can demonstrate that we are indeed irrational in our attitudes toward God.  But seeing as how the whole point of the argument is whether or not belief in God could be rational sense 1(b) is useless in our discussion.

Not quite there, buckaroo. Gods are supernatural. Belief in Gods is superstition. The "abject" part means nothing in our debate. Just because one is high in spirit in his belief of the supernatural does not raise him out of the supernatural realm and into reality. I believe I have discussed this elsewhere and do not wish to do so again. It is a lengthy subject. Suffice to say that you cannot, in your reality, point to god and show me god because you experience it.

I accuse atheism of superstition in senses 1(a) and 2.

That is because you have an erroneous view of atheism. Many theists do.

I can also argue that most of what is considered "superstition" within Christianity is a misapplication of Christianity.

Only from your superstitious point of view. A Southern Baptist will tell you the exact same thing.

I'll bring up Sleeper's quote again:

Probably because I've never experienced Joseph Smith or any of the Buddhist gods.  They've not cared to make themselves known apparently.  This common, yet laughable, atheistic line of reasoning that we have to have considered every religion in order to reject it doesn't work man...

Then your knowledge base on these unexplored religions is zero and you cannot make an intelligent statement about them. How do you know that one of these religions you have not expored is the correct one and the religion you experience now is brought to you via courtesy the devil?

[TryingtoConvert]

Sleeper, Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

The claim to be having a religious experience looks suspiciously 'human'. When looked at from the angle of deciding how one knows one is having a religious experience of God, why do people presume their experience is good ("I felt something guiding me", or "Someone must be watching over me")/. Unless you have a direct unmediated out-of-body experience with God (which is not possible even for mystics who are still 'trapped' in the mental realm by language) you are merely presuming your experience to be from a good and/or right or correct source. You are using a human-centered ethical criterion of good/right/correct in order to interpret a religious experience.

But could it be that you are being deceived by an evil spirit (or another god) and being led astray? No, you are still be presuming your encounter to be from a bad/evil source. Unless one presupposes that good things come from a good 'spiritual' source there is no way of knowing. Even subsequent 'evidence' or rather cause and effect may be or may become corrupted. Christians (and many other believers) will argue that their experience concurs with the testimony of their Scripture. They can't all be having a real experience of their God. This also takes us back to religious experience is colored by one's culture and tradition and therefore human centered.

Because one claims to have had a religious experience does not mean that God exists. Just because you believe God is there (epistemology) does not mean God is actually there (ontology). You need something more than the 'feeling' of religious experience for verification of that. Verification. This is why religious experiences fail. They cannot be verified sufficiently enough to those that do not have religious experiences, to those that have religious experiences outside your culture and/or tradition and many times by the person having a religious experience. And all this leads us to religious experiences are brought on by the imagination or drugs.

[FormerReformer]

First: My definitions of "apocalyptic" and "superstition" aren't wrong, they just aren't your limited definition.  You would probably call my usage of "Romantic" wrong as well, just because I almost never use it to mean what the editors of Harlequin books think it means.

Well, Christians have been known to redefine words to fit their eschatology.

I have no need to redefine words, I stand on their classical definitions.  It's the modern atheist who has tried to frame these words in a near Orwellian manner so that they mean absolutely nothing other than "Christian fallacies".

"Apocalyptic" can mean: etc., etc., etc.

You have been explained to that Jesus' ministry was written in an apocalyptic format, meaning then end of days. I'll tell you further that Revelation was written by a disgruntled Jew AFTER the second temple tear down and means nothing in the way of the end of the world. The end of HIS world, perhaps, as he knew it. It'll be interesting to see your take on that...*chucklin*

I would be well within the realm of Patristic thought if I took you back to my original definition of Apocalyptic: The apocalypse happens everyday in everyone's world.  Indeed, the end of St John's world (you don't shock me when you say Revelation was written AFTER the destruction of the second temple, the Church has maintained such since the beginning.  You might scare a 19th century dispensationalist, perhaps), or the end of many a Jew's world who happened to live in or around Jerusalem in AD 70.  Let's talk about the different worlds whose end started with the destruction of the Jewish temple: the old pagan polytheistic structure, the Pax Romana, the Old Roman Empire itself.  The Jewish Apocalyptic tradition doesn't prophesy the end of all life, it prophesies the end of life as we know it, the current age.  Daniel prophesies the downfall of the Babylonian Empire and it's take over by Persia, the end of the Persian Empire and it's take over by the Greek, and the end of the Greek Empire and it's take over by Rome.  Revelation prophecies the destruction of Rome and the existence of a thousand year Christian Empire.  Let's see Rome fell in AD 470 and Constantinople lasted... 1000 years.  

Now, if what you mean is that people in the first century expected the world could end at any moment in a very literal and not merely personal sense, you are correct.  When by saying that you imply the modern world has somehow risen above that, you are horribly wrong.  

What I'm saying that Jesus taught the end was near...imminent.

And it was.  The Temple was destroyed in AD 70.  That generation had indeed not passed away.

Atheism hasn't made the world ending any less likely,...

Non sequitor...

Not at all.  The mindset hasn't changed, even with a supposedly rational frame of reference.  If anything people are more frightened at the end of the world than ever.

...it's just removed the supernatural from the equation.

 
When one can show evidence of the supernatural, I have no choice but to revamp my atheism.

If and when you can be offered a plate of gourmet food and realize it for the feast it is, without saying it is all grass and protein strands you will be halfway there.  But that's not the point.  The point was...

At any moment an asteroid could hurtle into the earth, we are warned if we don't change our wicked ways the polar ice-caps will melt, and there is still the threat of world-ending nuclear or biological warfare.

Yes, and many will ascribe this train of thought by God's hand. It was God's hand that actually hurtled the asteroid...blah blah blah.

Oh, look, you shot right past the point and continued on your "Supernaturalism is silly" merry-go-round.  Point there, point gone again, point there, point gone again.  When the world finally does meet it's end, however that might be, it's not going to matter if it was God's hand that hurled the asteroid or just a hurtling bullet set into place by physics after the big bang that took 4 billion years to meet it's target.  World gone, poof, bye bye mankind.  The point is: it's no more or less silly to believe the world is going to end at any moment, when in fact it is a very likely that it could end at any moment.  You might think the Egyptians silly for believing a god caused the Nile to flood every year but there was nothing silly about the Egyptians planning their crops around that event.

Now, superstition means: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary .

(Webster's.  The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is you are subject to the biases and philosophies of the dictionary writers, the current OED definition was meaningless.)

I'll agree with that.

You can accuse me and the goat-herder of being superstitious in sense 1(b) only if you can demonstrate that we are indeed irrational in our attitudes toward God.  But seeing as how the whole point of the argument is whether or not belief in God could be rational sense 1(b) is useless in our discussion.

Not quite there, buckaroo. Gods are supernatural. Belief in Gods is superstition. The "abject" part means nothing in our debate. Just because one is high in spirit in his belief of the supernatural does not raise him out of the supernatural realm and into reality. I believe I have discussed this elsewhere and do not wish to do so again. It is a lengthy subject. Suffice to say that you cannot, in your reality, point to god and show me god because you experience it.

Who said anything about "abject"?  *rereads his statement*  Nope, nothing about "abject" up there.  The word "irrational" appears up there, and the definition is "an irrational abject frame of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition".  If the point of the argument is whether or not belief in God is rational or irrational, then the word "Superstitious" applied to a belief in God is meaningless, it considers your side of the argument already proved, which it is not.

I accuse atheism of superstition in senses 1(a) and 2.

That is because you have an erroneous view of atheism. Many theists do.

So you assert, but you don't prove.

I can also argue that most of what is considered "superstition" within Christianity is a misapplication of Christianity.

Only from your superstitious point of view. A Southern Baptist will tell you the exact same thing.

I would actually agree with a Southern Baptist on many points.  The only areas of which they would accuse me of superstition is in the usage of icons and prayers to saints.  I go easy on them, they haven't read enough and don't drink, no wonder their minds don't think clearly.

I'll bring up Sleeper's quote again:

Probably because I've never experienced Joseph Smith or any of the Buddhist gods.  They've not cared to make themselves known apparently.  This common, yet laughable, atheistic line of reasoning that we have to have considered every religion in order to reject it doesn't work man...

Then your knowledge base on these unexplored religions is zero and you cannot make an intelligent statement about them. How do you know that one of these religions you have not expored is the correct one and the religion you experience now is brought to you via courtesy the devil?

You bring up Sleeper's quote on other religions while completely ignoring mine, which states that I indeed have explored other religions.  If I reject Joseph Smith's teachings out of hand, that is because he makes claims in an area where I most assuredly know more.  Buddhism makes claims that any student of religion would do well to take seriously (though I fail to see if Buddhism is right and I am wrong how my religion could be "of the devil".  At the most it could be evidence of my unenlightenment and lack of karmic development).  An analogy: If religion were art Buddhism would be Ming vase, while Joseph Smith would be a six year old fresh from the Louvre insisting that his stick-figure finger-painting is the real Mona Lisa and the one on display is a fake.

edit: fixed quote tags

[TryingtoConvert]

If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me.

But I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing.  I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?

Straw man fallacy.

How is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.

Straw man fallacy.

Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.

This looks like an argument from ignorance.

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

False dichotomy, straw man fallacies.

How do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Argument from consequences.

TTC, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really was a Christian.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

[TryingtoConvert]

Oh what the heck I'll just have some fun here Mina, it was too easy to point out your fallacies.

I'm having trouble following your argument here.  Can you clarify?

Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

There can simply be no Phenomenon, object, person, place, or thing without material physicality... And for the easier clarification. Nothing can not be a something! EVER! It can not be a substance, object, person, place, entity, or thing!

Not hard to grasp at all.

If you fear that you are right, why are you so callous?  The problem with de-emotionalizing reality is simply in my opinion a destruction of reality, and a destruction of who we really are.

I'm being direct. It's not "de-emotionalizing reality" either. It is preventing you from using such thing as an argument because it's not an argument in regards to this subject. It's called honest discourse, and trying to emotionalize it a common tool used as some sort of argument to a supposed GODS existence when it is no such argument what-so-ever. If I don't be direct with you, this would spiral into nonsensical circular arguments that aren't worth anything in value to the discussion.

For instance, I love my girlfriend.  There are two levels of understanding this "love."  One is a biochemical understanding and another is a purposeful understanding.  If I simply throw away the purpose of emotion, and simply shrug my shoulders and call love simply an irrelevant feeling resultant of neuronal firing, I am fooling myself for the importance of love in one's life.  This is how God is to me, how prayer is important to me.  There is a physical side that can be explained, but to ascribe to it fakeness, an action towards something that doesn't exist is to me far from reality.  I don't mean to use fear mongering.  Apparently, you're not afraid of what I said, so your argument of fear mongering is irrelevant.

Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it. All emotions and feelings are material physical patterns, and all that means is that they are REAL! Using these as arguments is worthless to the discussion because I don't think you are going to argue that your love is "Nothing", and made of "Nothing". I'm also not afraid of what you said because I've used those arguments before while I was a Christian. I fully comprehend the argument and it's purpose even if it's seemingly not by intention.

But I simply believe this.  There's always a why or how to everything around us.  It's amazing how Stephen Hawking has proven everything in this world spontaneously created from nothing.

Incorrect. He was referring to zero point energy or ground state. As it GOES, nothing isn't nothing anymore in science! And that is because nothing in literal context is impossible. But for giggles I will post a some info for you.

http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

Gravity is considered a negative energy where expansion is considered positive. It's assumed the the total net energy is zero. But I still consider Zero energy as energy in a state of Equilibrium vs actually being nothing or literally zero. This is why I am more fond of zero-point energy. So at rest there is zero-point energy. This is where zero also = 1 or (0,1)

http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm

There are two ways the word nothing is used.. it's either the scientific way, or a means to describe something that is absent to which you expect to be there.. Hence, its use is greatly dependent on the context in which you use it..

Example:

You can say nothing is in my coffee cup, however the nothing is only reference to what is absent.. Hence, where is the coffee that I expect to be in my cup? Well, it's in the coffee pot. However in a scientific context, is your empty cup really empty? Can you take the cup and poor the space out of it? Can you empty the cup of it's existence? No you can't because there will always be something in the cup. This is true even if you smash the cup because the cup itself is made of existence and space. and what is empty space or existence made of?
Well, lets take a closer look at this. What you perceive to be nothing really is a no-thing. And perceptually you can understand, interact, and see what empty space is. You can take any point in space and regress to back to zero or (0,1), or zero base energy.

Confusing right?

So following the scientific context, a real simple way I can explain consciousness is that zero base information (energy) self-oscillates and formulates an informational structure. This can, with enough complexity as a structure, could process other pieces of information including itself with cognitive dynamics that could also lead to consciousness. The example here being that quantum computation does this in qbits that can process information in terms of probability, possibility, or in pure abstract. This could in theory be the driving force behind the butterfly effect, consciousness, emergence, and Quantum Electrodynamics. This is where zero point energy, as discussed above, is zero in the form of something like a qbit (both 0,1)..(clarification) So unlike binary code where the classic bit is either a 0 or a 1, or two separate switches or elements, its more like the Qbits to which are both 0 and 1 at the same time. This gives you a zero value base complexity, and that means you can with enough increase in complexity achieve consciousness, and the probability of any pattern arising from zero without the need for intelligent intervention. Also, IBM has also proven this to an extent with the 4 atom quantum computer.

I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?  How is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?  How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?  How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?  The answer to atheists like you is simply the Laws of Nature.  Really?  You know that's borderline deism.  You can't call yourself an atheist anymore and not consider the eternal nature of the "Laws."  In addition, "eternalness" and "infinity" are scientifically unobservable.  I cannot fathom how theoretical physicists simply assume their mathematical construct of infinity as creation.  I'd like to find out.  If infinity is indeed observable, then by all means, I don't mind God being the unobservable one that created it.  

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover."  Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature.  I simply the Laws of Nature are collectively the blueprint of the Logos, a "Law-Giver".  This necessitates the idea that there are things here that did not exist before.  Case in point:  I didn't exist before, and my self-awareness allows me to be even more contemplative of this fact and of my material nature.  Therefore, I also believe in a Creator, not Someone who reassembles what's already there, but Who brings about things that didn't exist before and keeps them existing, a blueprint of His ever-existence.  Finally, the ever-evolving and complicated Life that exists suggests a moving energy, a blueprint of a Life-Giver.  I believe in the Pantocrator, the Logos, and Life-Giver.  Creation attests to this, and I worship the one Name of God it truly bears.

How do I come up with this assumption?  Well, I simply tested it.  Is it worth believing in Him or not?  If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is.  He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.  He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing.  I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving.  I have life, and I don't want it to go away.  Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like.  I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God.  Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it.  With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QubitLink

-----

So here is what I was thinking on this issue when it comes to Zero Point energy:

Key:

* 0 = zero = Qbit = (0,1) = energy = a No -thing (base to potential self-oscillating energy)
* (0,1) = a no-thing:
* 0 = no other objects or complexities higher than zero
* 1= the only object even if there are an infinite number of other zero's (0,1)'s or points in space.. Because it's only relative to it's own point in space. Thus is zero point energy. However this could interact or interfere with other 0 points of energy and generate fluctuations and eventually the possibility of expansion and the rise to complexity. This being of course the Universe as we know it.

So in Quantum Electrodynamics, the particle and anti-particles are generated by borrowing energy from other zeros (0,1)'s (the future) to create a fluctuation that spawns them. So adding (0,1) to (0,1) gives you a possibility of getting (0,2). I'm not sure how it would work exactly, but that's just one conceptual idea. So these particles comeback together and destroy each other, leaving of course a byproduct that makes up the stuff of Stars and ourselves.

1) Energy Progression:

0 -> X =

Expansion: 0- infinity?
energy scale: 0 - infinity?
complexity scale: 0 - infinity ?
time scale: 0 -> ? , or 0 -> infinity?
dimensional scale: 0D -> XD


2) Energy Regression / decay:

X -> 0 =

Gravity: 0- Infinity?
energy scale: X? - > 0?
complexity scale: X? - > 0?
time scale: X? - > 0?

3) non-existence / non-material / impossible:
(0,0)
- 0 literal energy
- 0 Dimensional or Spatial Capacity
- Can not be a person place or thing (noun), or can not have or gain mass. Nor can it be or have matter, and energy in the literal sense. It can not even be or contain itself.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=player_embedded
-----
Cool Factoids: We humans are 99.7% - 99.9% EMPTY SPACE!

I simply wonder, how did it just spontaneously create itself?

The natural properties of energy: Positive, Negative, Neutral.

How is there a cosmic balance of reactions between subparticles in the first place?

All matter is made of Energy. In fact Energy itself is the very substance to all that exists, and that includes empty space itself. Matter is essentially just different states of Energy. Energy is potential time, movement, action, reaction, complexity, expansion, and emergence. It's a chaotic system of positive, negative, and neutral properties that can be without doubt incredibly complex. Even complex enough for emotions, feelings, and consciousness to arise.

Quantum Electrodynamics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8R4Tz_vKEE&feature=player_embedded

Chaos Theory and Emerging order from the coupling of positive and negative feedback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVRniR3GrQ&feature=player_embedded

Butterfly effect: Secret life of Chaos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6NnCOs20GQ&feature=player_embedded

How did these branes and strings (which are considered one-dimensional, so I don't understand your one or two dimensional argument) come about?

String theory will still require to follow the rules. That is why they are considered 1 dimensional object and not -1 dimensional because they know -dimensional objects are impossible to exist. negative dimensions is equal to negative existence or negative properties to which are impossible to be properties because they by definition state themselves to not exist.

How did they first start moving or shaking or vibrating into the material we are?

That's a funny thing when you are talking about energy

The point is this, all things "move" in some sense, and I believe in a "Mover." Your "Mover" is the Laws of Nature

Again Energy naturally exists. And -1 energy is impossible as -1 spatial capacity considering energy is what makes up spatial capacity as an infinite volume. You can only have ground state to the base of all existence on an energy scale. Ground state represents Zero without literally being Zero since literal Zero is impossible to exist.

How do I come up with this assumption? Well, I simply tested it. Is it worth believing in Him or not? If so, this God should also love, and move a sense of emotion in all of us to Love, and for this I simply tested this assumption by prayer, and sure enough, He exists, but not in the same plane as any form of other existence there is. He is both existent and non-existent, infinite and infinitesimal, everything and nothing, transcendant and imminent.

A very nonsensical pleading argument.

1) you have a literal impossible self contradiction
2) To say a GOD is infinite is equal to say the sum total of existence is GOD. That includes me, you, and everything. And that conflicts with another argument of "Existing in a different plane".. And the very fact that you claim it to be it's own individual with it's own mind and consciousness already makes it finite and not infinite.
3) You are also no grasping "Existing IN" hence not the answer to existence or creator of. At best you are limited to material physical manipulation no different than man creating cars and big cities, or even synthetic life.

He is the ultimate paradox, but I exist, and I don't want to stop existing. I am moved, and I don't want to stop moving. I have life, and I don't want it to go away. Call it emotional or fear mongering if you like. I call it the doorway to ultimate truth, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God. Everything starts with an assumption, and you test it. With atheism, there's nothing to test because it's a mere denial of the transcendant, not a fuller understanding of nature.

Incorrect. the Ultimate Paradox is that Existence itself doesn't requires Consciousness to exist. It is consciousness that is slave to the rules of existence. You essentially have it backwards. The biggest difference is the Existence simply exists because Non-existence can not exist. There is no creator to existence because that is impossible, and you can argue by virtue of opinion alone that there is no such thing as "GODS". Especially when all entities must follow the rules of existence!

No one is advertising anything to you.

Never state you did. It was an example.

Let me give you some things straight out. If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.

Was a Christian. And the Realm of GOD or Heaven,.. Think of your questions in regards to our Universe and then translate those to Heaven or any plane and realm you think could exist. You will find that all those questions will remain unexplained in terms of "Creation" simply because all minds are contained and must have a place to exist in. It's irrelevant if there are an infinite number of realms or universes. You can't create that which yourself require to exist! Thus GODS are logical fallacies.

If you are a Christian, your heavenly realm is growth and unity with God.  If you are a Christian, you are to be self-sacrificial even to those who hate you or persecute you.  If you are a Christian, any poor person that needs your help, you are commanded to help, irregardless of who this person is.  If you a Christian, you should treat all as equals and not be deceptive, but straightforward and respectful with others.  No advertising, no superficial clean image, no fear mongering.  Just simply live your life and let others live, but when you live your life, you will suffer.  I don't think that's something comforting to sell, and rather than brainwashing, it's rejected by most brains even among nominal Christians, but that's what a true Christian is.  By your example alone, you should be able to draw people to yourself, not be a Protestant pop-up ad to others.

Irrelevant to the discussion, and is also irrelevant to religion vs any other form of belief. That kind of logic is applicable regardless simple because we are conscious entities. This includes emotions, feelings, morality, choices, decisions or whatever you want to claim.

TTC, even when you were a "Christian" you were an atheist all along.  You never really was a Christian.

False argument.

[Asteriktos]

This sounds like an appeal to consequences fallacy to me.

Straw man fallacy.

Straw man fallacy.

This looks like an argument from ignorance.

False dichotomy, straw man fallacies.

Argument from consequences.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

I just realised what's going on here. You're enrolled in a Freshman logic course and using this forum as a testing ground for trying out all the terms you're learning. Come on now, fess up! 

[Sleeper]

Sleeper, Imagining that Elvis Presley is talking to you in your mind is the same thing as imagining a God is talking to you in your mind. In neither case would I think that a reasonable thing to believe, unless sufficient evidence were given in favor of it.

Neither would I.  I'm not speaking of hearing voices in one's head (or outside one's head for that matter).

The claim to be having a religious experience looks suspiciously 'human'.

Would you expect it to be otherwise?  We aren't talking about pillars of fire here.

When looked at from the angle of deciding how one knows one is having a religious experience of God, why do people presume their experience is good ("I felt something guiding me", or "Someone must be watching over me").

I'm not sure I understand the question.  They aren't presuming the experience they're having, they're just describing it.  It's not a neutral experience to which they're ascribing their own meaning.

You've made it clear how poorly you understand Orthodoxy, but if you were familiar with our spiritual tradition you'd find that our experience of Christ is remarkably consistent.

Unless you have a direct unmediated out-of-body experience with God (which is not possible even for mystics who are still 'trapped' in the mental realm by language) you are merely presuming your experience to be from a good and/or right or correct source. You are using a human-centered ethical criterion of good/right/correct in order to interpret a religious experience.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on (obviously not personal experience!) but this isn't true.  At any rate, the experience is much, much more than a feeling of goodwill.

Because one claims to have had a religious experience does not mean that God exists.

Alas!  We are finally on the same page!  I have said this from the beginning.  My sole point this entire time has been that a materialist has no grounds with which they can deny the experience of another human being.

And this is what it all boils down to.  Because I do not think there is airtight proof for God.  I believe there is enough, however, to allow a reasonable and logical person to open themselves up to the possibility of God.  And there are literally billions of people throughout history that have done this very thing and have had experiences that they cannot deny.

Now, before you jump all over that and say it means nothing, please remember that I'm not using this as proof or evidence of God. I'm merely pointing out that we are all in the same boat as far as our sensory experience is concerned, and that the materialist has no legitimate grounds to scoff at those who believe because of their own experiences.

I hope you're beginning to see the difference because you keep addressing these as if I were offering them as reasons for someone to believe in God, which I'm not.

Just because you believe God is there (epistemology) does not mean God is actually there (ontology).

Agreed.

You need something more than the 'feeling' of religious experience for verification of that.

Depends on what you mean by "feeling" because you yourself said all we can ever really know is what we experience with our senses.  Are you saying you need something more than "feelings" (our sensory experience) for verification of something?  If so, you're in serious trouble!

Verification. This is why religious experiences fail. They cannot be verified sufficiently enough to those that do not have religious experiences,

I've said this all along.  My personal experience is no reason for you or anyone else to believe.  It's a way for me to explain why I believe and why you have no grounds on which to deny me those reasons, since all one can do is evaluate their experiences in accordance with reason and logic (for the most part).

And all this leads us to religious experiences are brought on by the imagination or drugs.

Accept for those multitude of times where the imagination wasn't being utilized and drugs had not been taken.

[minasoliman]

Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

Give me time for my dyslexic brain to ruminate on what you wrote.

God bless.

[TryingtoConvert]

Thoughts on this video my fellow friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6KqJjeE8A&feature=player_embedded#!

[Asteriktos]

Thoughts on this video my fellow friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6KqJjeE8A&feature=player_embedded#!

This type of issue has been discussed since fairly early on (2nd or 3rd century, I believe). The typical patristic thought, if I am remembering correctly, is that earlier pagan stories that resembled Christian Biblical stories were meant 1) as a type of foreshadowing of the life of Christ, and 2) as a preparation of the world for the message of Christ. I'll see if I can dig up any quotes, and post again if I find anything...

[TryingtoConvert]

Thoughts on this video my fellow friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6KqJjeE8A&feature=player_embedded#!

This type of issue has been discussed since fairly early on (2nd or 3rd century, I believe). The typical patristic thought, if I am remembering correctly, is that earlier pagan stories that resembled Christian Biblical stories were meant 1) as a type of foreshadowing of the life of Christ, and 2) as a preparation of the world for the message of Christ. I'll see if I can dig up any quotes, and post again if I find anything...

Hmm so the 1st point would be the pagan beliefs, or in this case the Gentiles coming together with the Jews? Which is shown as the three Zorastanist priests that show up at Christ's birth?

[Asteriktos]

Unfortunately I searched the book that I thought I had read about this in (the first volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's five volume series on Church history), and all I came up with was a reference to St. Clement of Alexandria which has more to do with philosophy than mythology...

“Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. For your foot, it is said, will not stumble, if you refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence. (Prov. 3:23) For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ. (Gal. 3:24) Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ. “ - St. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 1, 5

If I come up with anything further I'll post it...

[TryingtoConvert]

Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

Give me time for my dyslexic brain to ruminate on what you wrote.

God bless.

What I wrote was very technical, but how hard is it to understand that "Nothing" can not be in literal context "Something"? It's very easy to conceptually understand, and you even seemingly like to argue that it could within your own self-contradicting arguments. There simply never was literally nothing As for the technical post, if you understand what a Ground State is to complexity, you are golden to understand that anything above ground state will have higher complexities greater than Zero (ground state).

The rest of that is just understanding the four stages of matter, how emergence works, or what it is when scientists talk about "Nothing" when they are only talking about "Ground state"/"Zero point Energy".

So what best describes existence? Energy! No God required.

[laconicstudent]

I'm failing to see the relevance of amateur physics to this discussion. Science is a naturalistic field of study that can only address phenomena that can addressed through experimentation. Zero-point energy and resting state is as utterly irrelevant to this discussion as Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros. 

[Aindriú]

Thoughts on this video my fellow friends?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6KqJjeE8A&feature=player_embedded#!

This type of issue has been discussed since fairly early on (2nd or 3rd century, I believe). The typical patristic thought, if I am remembering correctly, is that earlier pagan stories that resembled Christian Biblical stories were meant 1) as a type of foreshadowing of the life of Christ, and 2) as a preparation of the world for the message of Christ. I'll see if I can dig up any quotes, and post again if I find anything...

Reminds me of an article:

Pagan similarities

Allegations that Christianity is an adaptation of a pagan cult date from the 19th century. In 1875, Kersey Graves wrote The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours, a book so poor that even the Internet Infidels admit (in rather more diplomatic language) that it is a load of old cobblers. The idea that myths can be fitted into an overall pattern was given rather more credibility by Sir James Frazer in the early 20th century, but his work is now also disregarded by anthropologists. In 1936, Lord Raglan published The Hero: A Study in Myth, Tradition and Dreams, which included a list of attributes that heroic figures of legend are supposed to share. The list often turns up on the internet with claims that Jesus fits the pattern very well. The only problem is that he does not fit the pattern at all, and the case of Raglan's list has been thoroughly debunked.

More recently, the tradition was carried on in The Jesus Mysteries (1999) by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke, and Tom Harpur in The Pagan Christ (2004). These amateur historians play fast and loose with the facts, using carefully pruned quotations, mistranslation, and anachronism to produce a woefully inaccurate picture. But only by doing this can they maintain their thesis that Jesus is based on pagan antecedents.
The usual method of writers such as these is to read (or, more accurately, misread) some fragment of ancient mythology and claim that there are parallels to be found with the life of Jesus. With this in mind I present James Hannam's Guide to the Production of a Bestseller that Undermines the Roots of Christianity. With this guide, I guarantee that you will be able to find all the parallels you like between paganism and Christianity—or indeed, properly adapted, between any other two unrelated subjects that you care to name.

1)   The first thing to do is ensure you that you cast your net as widely as possible. So, within Christianity you should include every cult, heresy, and sect you can get your hands on. Gnosticism will be particularly helpful as gnostics did indeed borrow large chunks of pagan thought, which is partly why they were considered heretics in the first place. As for paganism, this can include just about everything. Freke and Gandy comb not only Greek cults (Oedipus) but also Egyptian (Horus and Osiris), Roman (Bacchus), and Persian (Mithras). Elsewhere you will find Celtic deities, Norse berserkers, and Indian mystics pulled into the fray. Tom Harpur is a particular fan of Egyptian myth. Now, with this vast body of writing, provided you are willing to wade through it all, finding parallels will not prove too challenging.

2)   Don't restrict yourselves to pagan religions from before the time of Christ. Remember, you can claim that Christians copied pagans, and not the other way around, even when the Christian writing is more ancient than the pagan. This is useful because you can now point to similarities between paganism and Christianity after the latter was already widespread. For instance, there is a poem with a line about the Norse god Odin being attached to the world tree ("I know that I hung on a windy tree, nine long nights, wounded with a spear"). Sounds like Jesus being nailed to the cross? Well, not really, and in any case the Norse myth was written down well after the Vikings converted to Christianity. Don't let that stop you.

...

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Is-Jesus-Christ-a-Myth-Part-Two-James-Hannam?offset=0&max=1

[minasoliman]

Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

I wasn't avoiding anything.  If I was, I wouldn't ask you to clarify.  Maybe I am dumb.  I'm sorry.

Give me time for my dyslexic brain to ruminate on what you wrote.

God bless.

What I wrote was very technical, but how hard is it to understand that "Nothing" can not be in literal context "Something"? It's very easy to conceptually understand, and you even seemingly like to argue that it could within your own self-contradicting arguments. There simply never was literally nothing As for the technical post, if you understand what a Ground State is to complexity, you are golden to understand that anything above ground state will have higher complexities greater than Zero (ground state).

The rest of that is just understanding the four stages of matter, how emergence works, or what it is when scientists talk about "Nothing" when they are only talking about "Ground state"/"Zero point Energy".

So what best describes existence? Energy! No God required.

Dude, calm down.  I'm reading your post right now, and it's making sense.  Before I was a bit confused on the point you were making, but you replied with a really long message.  I usually like to read short messages, but I don't have the attention span.  That's why I need some time.

So far I understand that "nothing" in the Hawking sense means a dynamic equilibrium.  The question I propose is how did this equilibrium come about?  And why are we not smashed together into a "0" state rather than keeping elements of the equilibrium separate?

As I read your post, I'll answer your post in full.

[minasoliman]

Okay, some thoughts in this argument, until I'm done listening and reading information you've given me on the physics behind all this:

Seriously? LOL. Nice avoidance of the issue sir. But, let's play dumb for a second and clarify..

There can simply be no Phenomenon, object, person, place, or thing without material physicality... And for the easier clarification. Nothing can not be a something! EVER! It can not be a substance, object, person, place, entity, or thing!

Not hard to grasp at all.

That is why God is no simple phenomenon, object, person,place or thing.  His existence shouldn't even be called "existence."  Words cannot fathom who or what God is.  We have no choice but to use anthropomorphic language to describe Him, but God is not something to be described, but to be experienced, as we are given that capacity to experience Him.

I'm being direct. It's not "de-emotionalizing reality" either. It is preventing you from using such thing as an argument because it's not an argument in regards to this subject. It's called honest discourse, and trying to emotionalize it a common tool used as some sort of argument to a supposed GODS existence when it is no such argument what-so-ever. If I don't be direct with you, this would spiral into nonsensical circular arguments that aren't worth anything in value to the discussion.

Honestly God is not a "thing" or "person" whose existence should be proven like a stone or Socrates.  He (a pronoun one is forced to use) is the means by which one thinks and acts.  One can only "prove" Him by our actions and by reflecting the inner relationship we have with Him.  Science rightfully lacks emotions in its arguments.  But when I speak of God, emotions cannot be separated from the rational, for both are intertwined in speaking about God.

Atheists "emotionalize" their arguments by pointing out the disasters and atrocities that occur in the world and God does not intervene.  So what do you expect from a believer?  Perhaps, you shouldn't use arguments that point to people's emotions to prove that He doesn't exist, "Where's your God now?  Why hasn't He prevented the deaths of many innocents?"  That's not proving God's inexistence, that's stirring anger and resentment, no less emotional than one's call for God's love and peace in heart and spirit.

Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it. All emotions and feelings are material physical patterns, and all that means is that they are REAL! Using these as arguments is worthless to the discussion because I don't think you are going to argue that your love is "Nothing", and made of "Nothing". I'm also not afraid of what you said because I've used those arguments before while I was a Christian. I fully comprehend the argument and it's purpose even if it's seemingly not by intention.

You say "Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it."  I say, I do feel the love of God, and I express it back to Him and to others as well.

Now, the rest of your post is scientific, and I'll need time to study it.  But the point is that this whole mode of existence we're in, this whole equilibrium of 0 we have (nothingness in this concept), all this discussion does not matter, because any solid theist who enjoys the study of science would not find this as threatening to his/her own belief in God, as least so far as I might think.  Your whole attack on Christianity is the idea of emotion.  I'm simply saying, you can't remove emotion from rationality in discussing God.  In just as much as God permeates His "Life" through us beyond any physical senses, it is the same in my discussion with you.  You cannot scientifically test God or describe God.  God simply is, whether it makes sense, whether it makes you giggle, or whether I look like a fool to you saying it, in the end, you have to understand that we don't even care what next scientific endeavor there is.

A big mistake on both sides is the idea we use "God of the gaps" argument.  For sure, there are theists who do use "God of the gaps" and there are atheists who recognize it and then generalize it to say we all believe in "God of the gaps."  As science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith.  Read my signature.  "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain."  We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes.  But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose.  An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

I remember I had a discussion about abortion, and I wasn't arguing embryological abortion, but fetal abortion.  The argument made against me was that a woman has her rights about her own property (her body) just as a man can protect his own house from intruders.  I argued, but what if a toddler crawled into a man's house?  Does the man have a right to shoot and kill the baby?  The answer I received was that my argument is based on emotion, while his is based on logic alone.  I thought that argument indeed lacked emotion, and I didn't criticize this person for being an emotionless psychopath, although I'm sure others might, but I told him reality has it that emotion is as important as rationality.  I think there's a basic agreement to disagree from that point on.

I'm not arguing abortion at all here, but I'm simply stating the fact that to remove emotion from discussing God as if God is some sort of scientific hypothesis is a vain attempt because no one stated God existed in the same way anything else does.  The famous scientist who said, "God?  I have no need of that hypothesis" shows exactly the narrow thinking of scientists.  Logic can only take you so far, and emotion can only take you so far.  Just as "faith" is a philosophy by which one lives by, really the basis of faith is God, God is my faith.  He is not an idea that I live by, but I believe He permeates in my existence that I may live it rightly and freely.

It is why I like to speak of God as "transcendant."  I think that's the most accurate way to describe God, and even that does injustice to His "being".  The paradox is this:  I can conceive that He is inconceivable.  The strange thing is like string theory, one can't prove it, but it works.

There's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment.  You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."  Maybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?  How is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place?  Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium?

If the answer to that question is something you already answered via one of the links you gave me, you don't have to answer this one.  But then again, I'm not sure if I'm asking it correctly to get my point across.

[minasoliman]

Okay, so more thoughts....I've watched all your videos (except the one hour one) and read all your comments.  Fascinating stuff, but what you seem to not understand is that by understanding more of what you're teaching me, I put more and more importance and majesty into the idea of God's creativity, and my belief in Him is stronger because of it.  As I explained before "God of the gaps" is indeed a God-blunderer.  One's true faith in God is precisely not that which explains gaps in the phenomena, but that which explains the Cause of all phenomena.

When I say I believe in Creator, Mover, Life-Giver, I don't mean that to be explained in a scientific sense.  The laws of physics, the chaos-order dynamic, the increasing and evolving complexity of nature, strings, branes, quantum mechanics/electrodynamics, qubits, mathematics, etc. are all "created, moved, and given life" by God.

1) you have a literal impossible self contradiction
2) To say a GOD is infinite is equal to say the sum total of existence is GOD. That includes me, you, and everything. And that conflicts with another argument of "Existing in a different plane".. And the very fact that you claim it to be it's own individual with it's own mind and consciousness already makes it finite and not infinite.
3) You are also no grasping "Existing IN" hence not the answer to existence or creator of. At best you are limited to material physical manipulation no different than man creating cars and big cities, or even synthetic life.

1.) Because proving God exists in the same way you or I exist is impossible
2.) Despite the fact that it is yet to be proven (in fact, string theory is nothing but a theory by which one can see how the world works, and not something that can be tested like all other theories, which is a strange predicament scientists find themselves) that the cosmos is infinite, even if so, God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist."  The "plane" argument is anthropomorphic language.  God does not have His own consciousnss, is not an individual, etc, all anthropomorphic or limiting language that describes something unlimited.  As I explained before, it's hard to explain God because God is unexplainable.  But He permeates in us, and we can freely subject ourselves to Him.  He gave the cosmos freedom, and this freedom is actualized in us, but it does not mean He does not "exist."
3.) Nope.  Once again, we are limited to reshaping what already exists, but God is unlimited, and hence a "true" Creator.

Incorrect. the Ultimate Paradox is that Existence itself doesn't requires Consciousness to exist. It is consciousness that is slave to the rules of existence. You essentially have it backwards. The biggest difference is the Existence simply exists because Non-existence can not exist. There is no creator to existence because that is impossible, and you can argue by virtue of opinion alone that there is no such thing as "GODS". Especially when all entities must follow the rules of existence!

I asked this in my previous post, but I also want to say that this is quite an assumption that we make of reality itself, that existence is merely existence, and nothing else can be assumed.  It is a scientific principle, a primary law of thermodynamics, but again believers will simply tell you, "God created it that way."  As Hawkings even admits, he didn't disprove God, but rather he did something all atheists in the past have confessed as a central part of their "faith," "God is unnecessary."  There is nothing new in what he said, and it's an ages old belief, but this is where I strongly disagree with.  God is certainly unnecessary in scientific observations, but is necessary in seeing in science beauty and purpose.  No one can prove or disprove God in a scientific manner, but one can contemplate whether He is necessary or not in one's life, and if so, how does that necessity manifest itself?

I promise if I have more thoughts, I'll only do it after watching that long youtube video, but I don't think it'll change anything I believe or have written to you.

[TryingtoConvert]

That is why God is no simple phenomenon, object, person,place or thing. His existence shouldn't even be called "existence." Words cannot fathom who or what God is. We have no choice but to use anthropomorphic language to describe Him, but God is not something to be described, but to be experienced, as we are given that capacity to experience Him.

This has got to be the most desperate use of irrationality to which I have ever seen come out of a Christians mouth or post on the internet. It's the most desperate form of pleading as well. This is even worse of an argument this argument I got in another forum:

Only GOD can KNOW how to Create Knowledge into existence

People either are intentionally stupid for the sake of circular arguments, or they really are this dumb. And I really hope you are merely trying to play dumb. When you start using Carl Segan's Dragon arguments and then try to tag on attribute of non-existence so it doesn't have to apply to existence while trying to claim it exists has got to be just sheer intentional stupidity  What's worse of all, you make the claim that you can't "fathom who or what GOD is" and you sit there claiming as if yourself can

Honestly God is not a "thing" or "person" whose existence should be proven like a stone or Socrates.

Circular rationality and avoidance to the discussion. Nor did you catch on that even if an entity existed, the concept and title of "GOD" is still purely that of opinion! Otherwise it's entirely irrelevant. Opinion nullifies the concept entirely!

He (a pronoun one is forced to use) is the means by which one thinks and acts. One can only "prove" Him by our actions and by reflecting the inner relationship we have with Him. Science rightfully lacks emotions in its arguments. But when I speak of God, emotions cannot be separated from the rational, for both are intertwined in speaking about God.

Again, more baseless emotional pleading.. And btw, science lacks emotions because it only studies and states information on subjects! It has nothing to do with emotions unless it's studying emotions! You clearly have no understanding of what science is then. At worse, this is also a very poor attempt to use "Christian Realism" where you make wild generalizations such as "Science rightfully lacks emotions in its arguments" as a means to rationalize or denounce it simply because it doesn't conform to your ideological constructs and emotional and psychological attachments to your religion. And you are also technically incorrect. Regardless of science, there is always an emotion attached to everything we think about and do. There will always be a positive, negative, and neutral emotion. Science for the most part tries to remain neutral so there is no Bias effecting the outcome of their work. It produces far more honest results than someone claiming a magical sky fairy exists and that all should bow and obey the will of an invisible horse that can seemingly not speak for itself.

Atheists "emotionalize" their arguments by pointing out the disasters and atrocities that occur in the world and God does not intervene. So what do you expect from a believer? Perhaps, you shouldn't use arguments that point to people's emotions to prove that He doesn't exist, "Where's your God now? Why hasn't He prevented the deaths of many innocents?" That's not proving God's inexistence, that's stirring anger and resentment, no less emotional than one's call for God's love and peace in heart and spirit.

Irrelevant to the argument and discussion. You again are deflecting because you seemingly can't address this discussion with any sort of honesty. And if you want to get technical, read the ten commandments and then Read Genesis.. Murder is murder.. I suggest you realize that before you make arguments of "Love and Peace". Especially when you claim such a deity to have created everything since that would include DEATH, Suffering. And it gets worse when itself under the the written word can't even lead by example!.. So much wrong there that it's not even worth arguing, especially since you seem the need to make wild irrational circular arguments to rationalize the problems in the religion to which you are unwilling to address.

You say "Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it." I say, I do feel the love of God, and I express it back to Him and to others as well.

Fail.

Now, the rest of your post is scientific, and I'll need time to study it. But the point is that this whole mode of existence we're in, this whole equilibrium of 0 we have (nothingness in this concept), all this discussion does not matter, because any solid theist who enjoys the study of science would not find this as threatening to his/her own belief in God, as least so far as I might think. Your whole attack on Christianity is the idea of emotion.

Incorrect, this is irrelevant of Christianity. This is discussion of "Creationsim", "GODS", and existence. Christianity so happens to argue Creationism to which is impossible.

I'm simply saying, you can't remove emotion from rationality in discussing God. In just as much as God permeates His "Life" through us beyond any physical senses, it is the same in my discussion with you. You cannot scientifically test God or describe God. God simply is, whether it makes sense, whether it makes you giggle, or whether I look like a fool to you saying it, in the end, you have to understand that we don't even care what next scientific endeavor there is.

I don't need to scientifically test a GOD to know it has to follow the rules of existence  . You really do like to ignore arguments and then ramble on as if you never read them. And to say something lays beyond your physical senses is again desperation. A lot of things could lay beyond our senses, this doesn't make them magically capable of not being bound to the rules of existence, or material physicality.

I will gladly accept your argument that your GOD is made of nothing, and exists in a state and place of non-existence..

A big mistake on both sides is the idea we use "God of the gaps" argument. For sure, there are theists who do use "God of the gaps" and there are atheists who recognize it and then generalize it to say we all believe in "God of the gaps."

Only GAPS we are filling is between zero and infinity.

As science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith. Read my signature. "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain." We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes. But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose. An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

Who built your GOD?
Who designed and created Knowledge into existence
Who designed and created consciousness
who designed and created intelligence
who designed and created existence
who designed and created material physicality so things could actually exist
Who created a place so things can have a place to exist?

And you do also understand that the Christian GOD is actually the Sun GOD stolen from other religions correct? Christianity is pretty much a cut and paste religion. And sorry, primary purpose can only be credited to existence itself! Everything else is just products of existence.

There's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment. You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."

You do understand the definitions of those correct?

Maybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?

Existence isn't in a cosmic equilibrium, never was. It's a chaotic system to where only on average is there a ground state. And biological processes follow the same rules. and you are also trying to suggest life requires a closed system when that is in fact false. However, you can reference negative free energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

The Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system. This maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy ΔG equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, minus the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[2]

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Good thing we live in an open system to where closed systems are subjective to what you are talking about. And they are not actually talking about literal "negative energy". It's available energy as stated here:

The Gibbs free energy, originally called available energy, was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematician Josiah Willard Gibbs. In 1873, in a footnote[citation needed], Gibbs defined what he called the “available energy” of a body as such:

The greatest amount of work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the processes are left in their initial condition.

In biochemistry you have this:

Because of the laws of enthalpy and entropy, free energy is always increasing. However, in endothermic reactions, or chemical reactions that require energy to occur, net free energy is negative because the energy is "lost" to the environment as it is bonded in the reaction.

Energy is often defined in reference to something else, and the sign of the energy is a function which direction is flowing. If energy (heat) flows from a system to the environment, the enthalpy change is negative (exothermic), whereas if energy flows from the environment to the system, the enthalpy change is positive (endothermic).

You are still talking about Positive, negative, and neutral attributes of Energy, and existence.

How is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place? Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium

Positive, negative, and neutral.

So all you are doing right now is trying to play the explain everything game when you only need to understand the 3 basic rules of existence and where ground state is. Anything between zero and X complexity is entirely irrelevant! Especially to existence since all things above Ground state are products of existence and are not required for existence to exist. That includes any conscious being, entity, or any object or thing in existence!

God is beyond the "sum of all things that exist.

It's not much different than Anselm's faulty statement of the ontological argument: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

And this right here tells me that you have completely lost this debate both rationally and logically on every single level possible. The existence out side of existence argument to make it possible to toss a string of words to together that allows something to not be bound to existence and can exist in a place and state of non-existence.  I may as well be talking to a Flat Earther.  

This argument is not better than a Flat Earther trying to claim that Earths circumference is 78 thousand miles with 486 million sq miles of surface area on a flat disk to who proceeds to state it as magical fact while being unable to provide a map, or even data to show that Earth isn't a GLOBE. It takes a lot of intentional ignorance to believe in such nonsense.

If you can reply to this without using energy, matter, complexity, information, material physicality, or the rules of existence.. You can continue this discussion.

The first thing you tried to do was try and attempt to detach the GOD from the rules of existence since that would obviously collapse the whole GOD theory entirely. But I never thought a Theist would even attempt to do such a foolish thing, especially after I warned you prior to you doing so . But I get the feeling you thought it was clever to attempt to, or you just decided you would go straight into preaching, and then trolling the subject. There is more nonsense and deflection in your arguments than I would bother wasting my time to count   .

All you had to say is that it's possible that some entity is responsible for this Universe's existence as it is now while being bound to the same rules. I don't think you realize that an entities existence is irrelevant since the GOD concept itself is just a concept of pure opinion. In order for something to be a GOD, you have to worship it as such! If you don't, then its simply not a GOD! Concepts of opinion are technically irrelevant to anyone other than that person who has the opinion. I don't even make the argument that the Big Bang couldn't have been the work, or even an accidental act of other entities! However, I don't deny the possibility of our Universe just being another molecule in a much larger reality, or in infinitely expanding realities either. But you are so bent on professing a creator to existence because anything less can be seen as just another material physical manipulator to which is technically in concept no different than man, or even some little ant! So they invent impossible concepts and then expect rational people to actually believe them. And those that don't, they attempt to use emotional pleading, brainwashing, and subliminal manipulation as arguments.  

I also think it's pathetic to say that such things don't need to be proven to exist because he says so, and that you should magically believe just because GOD exists as an idea or concept he worships on faith alone. It takes some serious form of brain meltdown to do that. And yes, I once professed and did this same crap to forums like this, and other people, and that is probably why it irks me so much when I see this crap.

I have always told Christians that if they want to believe in a GOD, don't try making an impossible concept sound as if it's possible. It's shooting to high, and it just makes it out to be ridiculous vs actually plausible. Hence, be more realistic   At least that way there is within the rules of opinion a 100% =/=100% of the existence of a GOD should such an entity actually be shown to exist. What would impress me though is if you came back and showed some humility and accept the fundamental flaws of your arguments

[Asteriktos]

Again, more baseless emotional pleading.. And btw, science lacks emotions because it only studies and states information on subjects! It has nothing to do with emotions unless it's studying emotions! You clearly have no understanding of what science is then.

And here I thought medical students had more grounding in science, not less, than the average chap

[minasoliman]

This has got to be the most desperate use of irrationality to which I have ever seen come out of a Christians mouth or post on the internet. It's the most desperate form of pleading as well. This is even worse of an argument this argument I got in another forum:

Only GOD can KNOW how to Create Knowledge into existence

People either are intentionally stupid for the sake of circular arguments, or they really are this dumb. And I really hope you are merely trying to play dumb. When you start using Carl Segan's Dragon arguments and then try to tag on attribute of non-existence so it doesn't have to apply to existence while trying to claim it exists has got to be just sheer intentional stupidity  What's worse of all, you make the claim that you can't "fathom who or what GOD is" and you sit there claiming as if yourself can

What is so desperate about what I wrote?  What I have written have been believed for centuries.  This is nothing new.  I'm simply applying the same beliefs as has been professed before.  You claim to be a Christian before.  Show some sympathy then.  So far, it seems we're just talking past one another, where you call me stupid, and I call you narrow-minded.  I never tagged an attribute of non-existence or existence to God.  I am limited in my discussion of Him.  You compare God to "dragons, sky fairies" and yet you can't understand what I am trying to tell you.  You are unable to understand because you don't want to.  You are narrow-minded, and a pejorative one at that.

Circular rationality and avoidance to the discussion. Nor did you catch on that even if an entity existed, the concept and title of "GOD" is still purely that of opinion! Otherwise it's entirely irrelevant. Opinion nullifies the concept entirely!

Opinion is only your opinion.

Again, more baseless emotional pleading.. And btw, science lacks emotions because it only studies and states information on subjects! It has nothing to do with emotions unless it's studying emotions! You clearly have no understanding of what science is then. At worse, this is also a very poor attempt to use "Christian Realism" where you make wild generalizations such as "Science rightfully lacks emotions in its arguments" as a means to rationalize or denounce it simply because it doesn't conform to your ideological constructs and emotional and psychological attachments to your religion. And you are also technically incorrect. Regardless of science, there is always an emotion attached to everything we think about and do. There will always be a positive, negative, and neutral emotion. Science for the most part tries to remain neutral so there is no Bias effecting the outcome of their work. It produces far more honest results than someone claiming a magical sky fairy exists and that all should bow and obey the will of an invisible horse that can seemingly not speak for itself.

Nothing what you say I disagree with.  I understand science very well.  I don't denounce science, but I respectfully disagree with your belief that that's all that's there.

Irrelevant to the argument and discussion. You again are deflecting because you seemingly can't address this discussion with any sort of honesty. And if you want to get technical, read the ten commandments and then Read Genesis.. Murder is murder.. I suggest you realize that before you make arguments of "Love and Peace". Especially when you claim such a deity to have created everything since that would include DEATH, Suffering. And it gets worse when itself under the the written word can't even lead by example!.. So much wrong there that it's not even worth arguing, especially since you seem the need to make wild irrational circular arguments to rationalize the problems in the religion to which you are unwilling to address.

Come again?  So you are arguing that the flaws of religion and of God is a god that created suffering and death and that people can't even lead by example?  If you can't see how emotional you are in your arguments right now, then you're right, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

You say "Try feeling love without actually and physically feeling it and expressing it." I say, I do feel the love of God, and I express it back to Him and to others as well.

Fail.

Is that really the best you can do?

Now, the rest of your post is scientific, and I'll need time to study it. But the point is that this whole mode of existence we're in, this whole equilibrium of 0 we have (nothingness in this concept), all this discussion does not matter, because any solid theist who enjoys the study of science would not find this as threatening to his/her own belief in God, as least so far as I might think. Your whole attack on Christianity is the idea of emotion.

Incorrect, this is irrelevant of Christianity. This is discussion of "Creationsim", "GODS", and existence. Christianity so happens to argue Creationism to which is impossible.

  I don't understand this part of your post.  I thought what I stated here was clearly relevant to the discussion we're having.

I don't need to scientifically test a GOD to know it has to follow the rules of existence  . You really do like to ignore arguments and then ramble on as if you never read them. And to say something lays beyond your physical senses is again desperation. A lot of things could lay beyond our senses, this doesn't make them magically capable of not being bound to the rules of existence, or material physicality.

I will gladly accept your argument that your GOD is made of nothing, and exists in a state and place of non-existence..

Magical?  Place of non-existence?  Obviously, if you were a Christian, you'd understand where I'm coming from as I don't state belief in God is a magical idea, neither is God in a place of non-existence.  In fact where do I even state that?

As science fills the gaps, some people lose faith in their respective religions, but how come I didn't lose faith. Read my signature. "Unless the Lord builds the city, the laborers labor in vain." We already know who builds skyscrapers or homes. But theists like to give credit to God because He is their primary purpose. An analogy I like comes from CS Lewis where he states (and I'm paraphrasing it) that he believes in God not like he believes in the sun, but that through Him, like the sun, He can see all things more clearly.

Who built your GOD?
Who designed and created Knowledge into existence
Who designed and created consciousness
who designed and created intelligence
who designed and created existence
who designed and created material physicality so things could actually exist
Who created a place so things can have a place to exist?

The question "Who built your God" is a logical fallacy if one truly understands how God is defined.  God IS.  That's it.
Your other questions are clear to me the answer is God whether they be directly or indirectly.

And you do also understand that the Christian GOD is actually the Sun GOD stolen from other religions correct? Christianity is pretty much a cut and paste religion. And sorry, primary purpose can only be credited to existence itself! Everything else is just products of existence.

Really?  Is that the best you got?  Calling Christianity a "copy and paste" religion by assuming it was borrowed from a Sun God?  What relevance is it when one says that atheism is nothing but a rehash of Epicurus?  Does that really weaken atheism?  A religion that has aspects of truth doesn't falsify Christianity.  Try arguing something based on its own merits.  Your ways to show similarities to other religions is a form of desperation at this point.

There's one more thing I'm reading that I'd like to comment. You say, "Existence exists because non-existence CANNOT exist."

You do understand the definitions of those correct?

Maybe I didn't read it (or hear it) yet in your links you gave me, but how is it that existence is in a cosmic equilibrium state and yet chemical and biological processes here require a state of negative free energy for life to continue to occur (by the introduction of larger more positive free energy)?

Existence isn't in a cosmic equilibrium, never was. It's a chaotic system to where only on average is there a ground state. And biological processes follow the same rules. and you are also trying to suggest life requires a closed system when that is in fact false. However, you can reference negative free energy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

The Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system. This maximum can be attained only in a completely reversible process. When a system changes from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state, the Gibbs free energy ΔG equals the work exchanged by the system with its surroundings, minus the work of the pressure forces, during a reversible transformation of the system from the same initial state to the same final state.[2]

Gibbs energy (also referred to as ∆G) is also the chemical potential that is minimized when a system reaches equilibrium at constant pressure and temperature. As such, it is a convenient criterion of spontaneity for processes with constant pressure and temperature.

Good thing we live in an open system to where closed systems are subjective to what you are talking about. And they are not actually talking about literal "negative energy". It's available energy as stated here:

The Gibbs free energy, originally called available energy, was developed in the 1870s by the American mathematician Josiah Willard Gibbs. In 1873, in a footnote[citation needed], Gibbs defined what he called the “available energy” of a body as such:

The greatest amount of work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the processes are left in their initial condition.

In biochemistry you have this:

Because of the laws of enthalpy and entropy, free energy is always increasing. However, in endothermic reactions, or chemical reactions that require energy to occur, net free energy is negative because the energy is "lost" to the environment as it is bonded in the reaction.

Energy is often defined in reference to something else, and the sign of the energy is a function which direction is flowing. If energy (heat) flows from a system to the environment, the enthalpy change is negative (exothermic), whereas if energy flows from the environment to the system, the enthalpy change is positive (endothermic).

You are still talking about Positive, negative, and neutral attributes of Energy, and existence.

How is it that all things move in a way in which to prevent complete equilibrium all in one place? Or how is it that a system continually moves in such a manner as to not "freeze" in a "lifeless" state of equilibrium

Positive, negative, and neutral.

Yes, I know that already.  Everything you wrote.  I was worried I didn't ask it right.

Fine, there is a chaotic element of positive, negative, and neutral.  How is it that positive and negatives never cancel each other out

So all you are doing right now is trying to play the explain everything game when you only need to understand the 3 basic rules of existence and where ground state is. Anything between zero and X complexity is entirely irrelevant! Especially to existence since all things above Ground state are products of existence and are not required for existence to exist. That includes any conscious being, entity, or any object or thing in existence!

Forgive me if you already explained it or I missed it, but I need to understand more of this.  In the meantime, is this what at present many people use to show that God doesn't exist?

It's not much different than Anselm's faulty statement of the ontological argument: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.

And this right here tells me that you have completely lost this debate both rationally and logically on every single level possible. The existence out side of existence argument to make it possible to toss a string of words to together that allows something to not be bound to existence and can exist in a place and state of non-existence.  I may as well be talking to a Flat Earther.  

This argument is not better than a Flat Earther trying to claim that Earths circumference is 78 thousand miles with 486 million sq miles of surface area on a flat disk to who proceeds to state it as magical fact while being unable to provide a map, or even data to show that Earth isn't a GLOBE. It takes a lot of intentional ignorance to believe in such nonsense.

Really?  So in other words, I am a rejecter of science by using the Anselmian argument?  How?  How is I'm no different than a flat-earther?  Don't flat-earthers deny what they see?  I simply just don't deny what I don't see.  Maybe I'm ignorant.  It's telling that if you can compare me to flat-earthers, then by all means tell me how am I rejecting science?

If you can reply to this without using energy, matter, complexity, information, material physicality, or the rules of existence.. You can continue this discussion.

  I was simply having a scientific discussion on things I don't understand, like Hawking's theory of everything.

The first thing you tried to do was try and attempt to detach the GOD from the rules of existence since that would obviously collapse the whole GOD theory entirely. But I never thought a Theist would even attempt to do such a foolish thing, especially after I warned you prior to you doing so . But I get the feeling you thought it was clever to attempt to, or you just decided you would go straight into preaching, and then trolling the subject. There is more nonsense and deflection in your arguments than I would bother wasting my time to count.

Precisely!  It would collapse the whole idea of God.  Before Christ even came, theists believed this.

All you had to say is that it's possible that some entity is responsible for this Universe's existence as it is now while being bound to the same rules.

That's deism.  Is that what you believe?

I don't think you realize that an entities existence is irrelevant since the GOD concept itself is just a concept of pure opinion. In order for something to be a GOD, you have to worship it as such! If you don't, then its simply not a GOD! Concepts of opinion are technically irrelevant to anyone other than that person who has the opinion. I don't even make the argument that the Big Bang couldn't have been the work, or even an accidental act of other entities! However, I don't deny the possibility of our Universe just being another molecule in a much larger reality, or in infinitely expanding realities either. But you are so bent on professing a creator to existence because anything less can be seen as just another material physical manipulator to which is technically in concept no different than man, or even some little ant! So they invent impossible concepts and then expect rational people to actually believe them. And those that don't, they attempt to use emotional pleading, brainwashing, and subliminal manipulation as arguments.  

I also think it's pathetic to say that such things don't need to be proven to exist because he says so, and that you should magically believe just because GOD exists as an idea or concept he worships on faith alone. It takes some serious form of brain meltdown to do that. And yes, I once professed and did this same crap to forums like this, and other people, and that is probably why it irks me so much when I see this crap.

Have you also used to profess that God is beyond anything that can be fathomed?

God is an impossible concept, I agree.  But once again, you limit your beliefs to what you see.  I know you don't like hearing that.  I'm not trying to resort to any argument to convince you anything.  I am trying to show you how I personally believe.  I know you won't be convinced.  I didn't think what I said will convince you at all.  I'm simply trying to have a conversation and maybe try to understand where you're coming from, but you're making it impossible, and you resort to attacks.  I'm sorry you feel this way.

I have always told Christians that if they want to believe in a GOD, don't try making an impossible concept sound as if it's possible. It's shooting to high, and it just makes it out to be ridiculous vs actually plausible. Hence, be more realistic   At least that way there is within the rules of opinion a 100% =/=100% of the existence of a GOD should such an entity actually be shown to exist. What would impress me though is if you came back and showed some humility and accept the fundamental flaws of your arguments

You're right.  It's not easy to believe in God.  It takes practice and consistency to do so.  To me, not believing in God requires one to live in a dumpster for years and not knowing that you smell bad.  Believing in God is a sobering experience to me.  Honestly, and I'm not saying this to attract you.  You simply asked how is that we believe in God, and I'm telling you.

[TryingtoConvert]

Give me some time to follow up. But I have this for you:

That which is beyond the sum of that which exist, by definition, does not exist itself, yes?

The whole of Christianity hangs in the balance here, I would have thought this would be very near the top (if not the top) of your list of things to do.

One important dilemma that I can see is that you also stated that anything less than creation of existence would only resolve to deism and not Christianity. Sticky situation here.

[minasoliman]

Give me some time to follow up. But I have this for you:

That which is beyond the sum of that which exist, by definition, does not exist itself, yes?

No, not at all.  I tell you, the concept of God is not like fairies or unicorns.  When we say He exists, we don't say He exists like we do, we just don't have any better language to describe His being.  He neither exists nor does He not exist.  He is beyond the sum total of all things that exist like we exist.  He is the One we believe who created the laws of the cosmos, the "stuff" of the cosmos, and the interactions occurring between the "stuff" of the cosmos.  We believe that it is through Him that there exists the sum total of all things.  The sum total of all things is not Him, but He is in them, and they exist through Him.  It's a mystery that we can't explain, but as we grow, we get better at understanding more about it, which is what makes belief in Him and the afterlife so exciting.

The whole of Christianity hangs in the balance here, I would have thought this would be very near the top (if not the top) of your list of things to do.

Do what exactly?  Talk about this?  You could simply ask.

One important dilemma that I can see is that you also stated that anything less than creation of existence would only resolve to deism and not Christianity. Sticky situation here.

Indeed.  A pantheistic sort of deism.  I.e. we're all part of "God" and God is an impersonal sum of all things, a force, the "laws" of our existence, the collective beauty of what is around.  I think most atheists really would resort to this type of belief in God.  It is very close to the "One" of the Hindus, without all the reincarnation stuff.  It essentially makes no difference to me whether one is a Hindu or an atheist.  Both have a form a vanity of life in it and makes all things seem that in the end, nothing matters really.

[TryingtoConvert]

What is so desperate about what I wrote?  What I have written have been believed for centuries.  This is nothing new.

Not hard to imagine people centuries believing such nonsense, especially considering their average education was pretty dang poor. I could have flown over them in a Helicopter and they would have worshiped me as a GOD. Centuries old nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical centuries later. You are here attempting to suggest that because other people believe something that it's magically truth. It's a false and dishonest argument because you really don't want to face the arguments posted.

 I'm simply applying the same beliefs as has been professed before.

Irrelevant

 You claim to be a Christian before.  Show some sympathy then.

How can I show you sympathy when you continue to use dishonest discourse, knowingly so no less. I've tried to be sympathetic, and you must remember where you are here. You are in a thread that challenges and discusses these issues. If you don't want your faith or belief in GOD challenged, why are you here? You ought to know better, and ought to know what to expect when you enter these discussions, especially when you choose to engage in them.

 So far, it seems we're just talking past one another, where you call me stupid, and I call you narrow-minded.

Nobody called you stupid, nor do I think you are stupid. However, that doesn't mean that your actions here weren't stupid. We all do stupid things, and I did point that out. I also outlined why you got yourself into that position. You engaged in dishonest discourse, deflective arguments, circular arguments, and even arguments that were clearly made up as you went along. Did you seriously think those kinds of debating tactics or arguments would land you any respect? I even sometimes find myself in these situations to where I need to take a good step back and realize my own nonsense. We are all human, and we all do stupid things from time to time. So no, I wouldn't hold this against you unless you really choose to persist with it.  

I never tagged an attribute of non-existence or existence to God.

Actually you have, more than once. Please re-read your arguments. Don't make me quote you, that's not going to turn out well for you.

I am limited in my discussion of Him.  You compare God to "dragons, sky fairies" and yet you can't understand what I am trying to tell you.  You are unable to understand because you don't want to.  You are narrow-minded, and a pejorative one at that.

No, I compared your version or concept of it to those because it really is beyond possible. Also made the argument that you keep ignoring, and that argument was that the concept of GOD is only a concept of Opinion regardless of any entity should exist. Opinions in a world of Opinions is irrelevant! Things are only GODS if you worship them as such. Otherwise it's an irrelevant concept simply because anything can be worshiped as a GOD!.

Opinion is only your opinion.

Interesting, it seems like you have had your first logical thought. Now read the above over again.

Nothing what you say I disagree with.  I understand science very well.  I don't denounce science, but I respectfully disagree with your belief that that's all that's there.

Eh? Science is only the study of all that is there and nothing more. Are you making the argument that since you feel there should be more, that there is magically more? It's ok if you disagree with my position, but that isn't actually what you are attempting to disagree with. This entire time you have been attempting to disagree with the fundamental rules of existence itself as if that's magically possible. Your GOD can't be made of nothing, can't be infinite, can't be omnipotent, can't be all powerful, can't exist out side the capacity of existence or spatial capacity, can't be a negative dimensional object, can't function or even know itself exists without information, can't create existence, and surely can't create the rules of existence either. The Christian GOD concept is so flawed that it's actually rather ridiculous.

Come again?  So you are arguing that the flaws of religion and of God is a god that created suffering and death and that people can't even lead by example?  If you can't see how emotional you are in your arguments right now, then you're right, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

I actually was quite calm, you simply read emotion in that vs actually taking the time to understand the argument. So I will make it really easy for you.

(under your beliefs)
1)  Did your GOD create the 10 commandments
2) Did your GOD create Death?
3) Did your GOD create suffering?
4) Did your GOD kill anything?
5) Do intelligent and wise Leaders lead by example, or do hypocrites make good leaders?
6) Is your GOD omnipotent (infinitely knows all there can infinitely ever be known?)
7) Who at that point would be responsible for when some parent drowns their children in a bathtub for their sins, or when someone commits genocide?

It's pretty much exactly what Island of Dr Monroe was referencing to.. You can't blame the beasts of your creations, fore their faults are that of your own doing! Nor can you lead by hypocrisy and expect those to follow your laws to which yourself chooses not to follow. Now go Back and read Genesis.

Is that really the best you can do?

Really? Do you even understand why you failed? What part about "try replying without energy, information, material physicality,existence, spatial capacity, matter ect" did you not comprehend? Of course you failed!

I don't understand this part of your post.  I thought what I stated here was clearly relevant to the discussion we're having.

This discussion pertains to all GODS, and not just the Christian GOD. Christianity is more specifically used in this argument because Creationism is actually impossible, nor would it be required.

Magical?  Place of non-existence?  Obviously, if you were a Christian, you'd understand where I'm coming from as I don't state belief in God is a magical idea, neither is God in a place of non-existence.  In fact where do I even state that?

To put this gently, if your GOD is made of something, your argument completely fails. Hence bound to material physicality. If you try to state it's made of non-material (nothing), The GOD concept still fails and self-collapses. Hence, not the answer to existence as it would just be another product of existence. You need to learn what infinite regress is and why no mind, or entity could ever solve infinite regress. It will need a place to exist in, something to be made of, and a complexity at least greater than zero. Just like the rest of us!

Existence itself is the cause to all that exists and can exist. Not some entity you want to worship as A GOD since itself is bound and slave to those very same rules! It can't create that which itself requires to exist. Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, they can not actually create it. Conscious beings can however manipulate it on a very limited scale, such as building cities.

The question "Who built your God" is a logical fallacy if one truly understands how God is defined.  God IS.  That's it.

Incorrect. Your god requires to be made of something (material physicality), requires information to even know itself exists, requires information to even be conscious, must have a place to exist, must be more complex than ground state (zero), and must be bound to the rules of time... Sorry kiddo but your so called GOD is a logical fallacy. It can't solve infinite regress, and requires far more cause to exist than you are willing to admit. In fact it would require more cause to exist then either you or I. It's slave to the rules of existence to which itself can not create!

Your biggest problem, Existence doesn't require your GOD to exist! Your really have it ass backwards.

Really?  Is that the best you got?  Calling Christianity a "copy and paste" religion by assuming it was borrowed from a Sun God? 6 What relevance is it when one says that atheism is nothing but a rehash of Epicurus?  Does that really weaken atheism?

This tells me that you know very little about how Christianity was formed. And how would that ever weaken Atheism? GOD's are conceptually not applicable to many atheists because power and control aren't attributes worthy of worship. Entities are irrelevant, especially in regards to opinionated concepts such as GODS.

A religion that has aspects of truth doesn't falsify Christianity.

There are a a lot of things that Falsify Christianity.

Example:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

Many humans have died, or have gotten severely ill discovering that even a potato is only edible if you don't eat the green parts. Here is but a very very very small list... there are thousands of fruits, or seed bearing plants and trees that can not be consumed!

POKEWEED (Pokeberry), Phytolacca, roots and fruit are dangerous
RHODODENDRON, (Azalea), all parts are fatal
ACOKANTHERA, fruit and flowers
AGAPANTHUS, African lily, foliage and bulb
AMSINKIA (Tarweed), foliage and seeds
AMARYLLIS, A. belladonna digitalis, bulbs contain alkaloids; berries and other parts
ATROPA BELLADONNA, all parts, especially black berries
AZALEAS (RHODODENDRON), all parts are fatal!
BANEBERRY, (Doll's Eyes), red or white berries, roots and foliage
BEGONIA, tubers, foliage and blossoms
BLACK LOCUST, bark, sprouts and foliage.. Potentially fatal!
BUCKEYE HORSE CHESTNUT, sprouts and nuts can be fatal
CASTOR BEAN, seeds are fatal!
CHERRIES, Prunus (wild and cultivated), twigs and foliage are fatal!
CHERRY LAUREL, all parts are very dangerous; contains hydrocyanic acid - Fatal
CHINA BERRY TREE, Melia, berries are poisonous and fatal
CHRISTMAS BERRY, (Toyo), berries are poisonous and potentially fatal <--- How Ironic!
CHINA BERRY TREE, Melia, berries are poisonous
CREEPING CHARLIE, black or blue - potentially fatal
CROCUS, all bulbs - potentially fatal
DAPHNE, Laurus, the berries are fatal!
DAFFODIL, (Narcissus), bulbs are fatal
DAPHNE, the berries are fatal!
DEATH-CAMAS, all parts are poisonous, roots are fatal!
FOXGLOVE, Digitalis purpurea, whole plant can be fatal
GOLDEN CHAIN, seeds and pods may be fatal
LANTANA CAMARA (Red Sage), green berries are fatal
LARKSPUR, (Delphinium), foliage and roots are dangerous, seeds may be fatal!
MISTLETOE, berries are fatal!
MOONSEED, berries may be fatal
MOUNTAIN LAUREL, young leaves and shoots are fatal!
POISON HEMLOCK, all parts are fatal!
POTATO, sprouts and foliage are fatal!
RHODODENDRON, (Azalea), all parts are fatal

Try arguing something based on its own merits.  Your ways to show similarities to other religions is a form of desperation at this point.

Actually I do

In fact the bible is poorly written.. And that is being polite..Sorry but the bible can not be considered a history book what-so-ever.. It's utterly laughable to even suggest it is.. The fact that it was written by man completely invalidates it. Much of what is written was stolen from other far more ancient religions than Christianity. It has more contradictions in it than I can even remember atm. Anyone that believes mosses parted the sea or that the world flooded a thousand plus feet above sea level, or that anything in Genesis actually makes any sense is delusional.. The bible only has historical value to itself where it might have embellished stories of common events that scared the piss out of them..

WORSE YET, CHRISTIANITY IS THE WORSHIPING OF A SUN GOD!

----

But lets look at very problematic issues with the Bible:

1) plagiarism, contradiction, and unoriginality of the Bible

lets get into some fun stuff while we are at it.. Let's see how much you even know about your religion and why it's entirely false and a form of plagiarism, or at the very least a perfect example of a copy / paste religion.

Jesus and Hercules
* http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hercules.html

*Overcame the serpent and assassination attempts during infancy.
*Divine Father and Mortal Mother.
*Birth prophesied.
*Consoled mother upon time of death with reference to Heaven
*Final words: "It is finished"

Jesus and Dionysus
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html

*Dionysus was the god of wine, agriculture, and fertility of nature
*Divine Father, Mortal Virgin Mother
*Healed the sick
*Turned water into wine
*Killed, and resurrected to immortality
*Depicted on a Donkey
*Death was greatest accomplishment delivering humanity

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm

*Worldwide flood caused by rain would destroy everything
*A single righteous man: Ut-Napishtim or Noah
*The main characters were instructed to build an ark of wood with compartments, and have a single door
*The arc settled on a mountain in the Middle East
*Two birds returned to the ark, but not the third
*An animal was offered as a sacrifice upon landing
*The Gods in both stories expressed remorse for what they did

Osiris
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/osiris.html

*Body chopped up and scattered throughout the nation - Judges 20:6
*Virgin mother
*Rose from the grave to judge the souls of the dead

The First video explains why Christianity is the Worshiping of a SUN GOD! And explains the birth of JESUS and why Jesus Birthday celebrated on Dec 25th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKZhd3mJeBE&feature=player_embedded

2) One or More than one GOD?:

23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7

3) Jesus's Story Plagiarized / Copied and Pasted
Note: I lost the source site to the list below..

The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity. This goes beyond Judaism. The bulk can be directly traced to Egyptian religion and worship of the sun god, Horus, who happens to share many important features with Jesus. These features are so identical, the issue cannot be due to coincidence. This is not to say that Horus is the only Pagan god with similar features, but he is one of the most identical to Jesus. Others might be Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or Zoroaster.

1. His mother was a virgin woman: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, Zoroaster
2. He was born on December 25: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
3. His earthly (adopted) father was a carpenter: Jesus, Krishna
4. His birth was signaled by a heavenly star: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
5. At his birth, shepherds presented him with gifts: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
6. He was born in a manger or a cave: Jesus, Dionysus, Mithra
7. As a baby, he is declared a king. Wise men present him with gifts of gold: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
8. Angels or other good divine spirits sang songs or danced at his birth: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
9. He was threatened by a king or tyrant who tried to kill him as an infant: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Moses
10. He was of royal lineage: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
11. He taught at the temple as a child and astounded all who heard him with his wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster
12. He was baptized at a river: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster
13. His hapless baptizer is later decapitated: Jesus, Horus
14. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil: Jesus, Zoroaster
15. He was a traveling teacher of great wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Mithra
16. His ministry preached a message of charity, peace and love. He lived in poverty and loved the poor: Jesus, Krishna
17. He taught of heaven and hell, revealed mysteries, resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse: Jesus, Zoroaster
18. He gave a famous sermon on a mountain: Jesus, Horus
19. He had 12 disciples: Jesus, Horus, Mithra
20. He gave his disciples the power to work miracles: Jesus, Krishna
21. He was transfigured in front of his disciples, sometimes described as shining as the sun: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
22. He healed the sick and the injured: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Serapis, Zoroaster
23. He cast out demons: Jesus, Horus, Zoroaster
24. He fed hundreds or thousands with magically generated food: Jesus, Buddha
25. He walked on water: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
26. He brought back the dead: Jesus, Horus
27. He turned water into wine: Jesus, Dionysus
28. His followers were admonished to take vows of poverty and renounce worldly desires: Jesus, Buddha
29. He was called such exalted titles as "Lord", "Master", "Light of the World", "Holy One", "Redeemer", "The Way", "The Truth", etc.: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
30. He is called "Logos" or "The Word": Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Prometheus, Zoroaster
31. He was called "the anointed one" (how "Christ" translates): Jesus, Dionysus, Horus
32. He was known to his followers as a Shepherd of Humanity: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Serapis
33. He was known as a fisher, associated with the fish: Jesus, Horus
34. He's identified with the ram or lamb: Jesus, Dionysus, Horus, Mithra
35. He's identified with the lion: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
36. He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
37. He rode in a triumphal procession on a donkey: Jesus, Dionysus
38. He condemned the clergy for their ambition and hypocrisy. He would later fall victim to their scheming: Jesus, Krishna
39. He crushed a serpent's head: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
40. Declared the savior of humanity, slain for our salvation: Jesus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra
41. He sometimes is known by a heart symbol: Jesus, Krishna
42. His body and/or blood is consumed through bread/wine in a symbolic ritual: Jesus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra, Zoroaster
43. He had a sacred cup or grail: Jesus, Zoroaster
44. He died while hung from a cross or a tree: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna
45. His good friend, a fisherman named Peter/Petraeus, would desert him: Jesus, Prometheus
46. He was crucified between two thieves: Jesus, Horus, Krishna
47. He was around the age of 30 when he was crucified: Jesus, Krishna
48. At his death, the sun darkened or there were other grim supernatural signs: Jesus, Krishna
49. He went to the underworld for three days: Jesus, Attis, Mithra
50. He was resurrected: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
51. He was resurrected during the springtime, the date of which would become a day of celebration among his followers: Jesus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra
52. His sacred day is Sunday: Jesus, Mithra
53. He is the second part of a divine trinity and/or considered to be one with his father god: Jesus, Attis, Krishna
54. He promises to return one day: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Zoroaster
55. When he comes again, he will ride on a white horse to do battle with the prince of evil: Jesus, Krishna

4) Magical Unicorns!:
Deuteronomy 33:17.
"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends."

And More Plagiarism or unoriginality: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=18212437&blogId=513421273

Fine, there is a chaotic element of positive, negative, and neutral.  How is it that positive and negatives never cancel each other out

They do, a lot. A simple collapse of wave function in electrodynamics is a perfect example. And you are also forgetting that order from chaos is the result from positive, and negative feedback. Order lies at the very edge of chaos. When such things cancel out, you get neutral states, or different results and outcomes.  If you really want to dig deep into this subject, really take the time to study it.

Forgive me if you already explained it or I missed it, but I need to understand more of this.  In the meantime, is this what at present many people use to show that God doesn't exist?

On a forum? They do make science books you know , Internet is a good search tool as well. I'm not going to spend all year teaching you physics, or the entire sum of everything man currently knows. I provided you with a very basic understanding to where the most important aspects of understanding is found in those 3 laws, and ground state. The rest is semantics technically speaking.

Really?  So in other words, I am a rejecter of science by using the Anselmian argument?  How?  How is I'm no different than a flat-earther?  Don't flat-earthers deny what they see?  I simply just don't deny what I don't see.  Maybe I'm ignorant.  It's telling that if you can compare me to flat-earthers, then by all means tell me how am I rejecting science?

Did you scientifically validate any of your arguments? Such as that very argument that got you into a logical fallacy that tries to fly in the face of the laws of existence? These laws that can not possibly be written or broken but rather followed and subjected to require in order to exist? You are rejecting the scientific method by making up things as you go along without even being able to back yourself up. What do you expect when you say your GOD exists outside all that exists?

Precisely!  It would collapse the whole idea of God.  Before Christ even came, theists believed this.

That really proves how much of a fallacy it is. Besides, the concept is purely reliant on your opinion anyways. Other opinions already nullify it. Opinionated concepts are irrelevant.

That's deism.  Is that what you believe?

I don't believe in the concepts of GODS, it's simply not applicable what-so-ever regardless if an entity even existed. Either all things are GODS, or there are no GODS at all.

Have you also used to profess that God is beyond anything that can be fathomed?

You do understand the very contradiction of your post correct? If you have a concept in your head, you have fathomed it. The argument here used however is merely an excuse to believe when it's existence has shown to be irrelevant, impossible, or subjected to the arguments above. It's more Carl Segan's Dragon, and that gets you nowhere in a debate.

God is an impossible concept, I agree.  But once again, you limit your beliefs to what you see.

Please stop formulating contradictions  

I know you don't like hearing that.  I'm not trying to resort to any argument to convince you anything.  I am trying to show you how I personally believe.  I know you won't be convinced.  I didn't think what I said will convince you at all.  I'm simply trying to have a conversation and maybe try to understand where you're coming from, but you're making it impossible, and you resort to attacks.  I'm sorry you feel this way.

You need to get more realistic with your concept before it can be considered even plausible. BTW, you are getting handed the hammer because you keep making irrational and nonsensical arguments. There is so much dishonest discourse in your arguments that it's literally ridiculous.  

You're right.  It's not easy to believe in God.  It takes practice and consistency to do so

 

.  To me, not believing in God requires one to live in a dumpster for years and not knowing that you smell bad.

You base your faith on dogma?

Believing in God is a sobering experience to me.

Ok, that's fine. But do remember this is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when you are in an atheist thread and engaging in arguments such as this one. I don't have a problem with what you believe, I have a problem when you attempt to rationalize it and profess it as truth within an argument such as this one while making everything up as you go along.. Heck, I could still go by all that I have said above and still believe in a realistic and plausible GOD figure. However, I don't worship anything..It's non-applicable regardless of what exists.


Edit:

Please do realize though that there is nothing wrong with what you believe in. Just remember that getting into discussions with opposing views, use honest discourse and arguments. I think you are probably a nice guy who is passionate about his beliefs, I can respect that because I do know what that is like myself

[TryingtoConvert]

Both have a form a vanity of life in it and makes all things seem that in the end, nothing matters really.

Yes, atheists are vain because we think that the universe was created for us, we're arbitrarily separated from the rest of the animal kingdom because of a supernatural piece of fluff that has absolutely no evidence to support its existence, and that we'll go to Heaven when we die because we let go of our reasoning and rational thinking to believe in an ancient book written by goat herders.

Oh, wait.

Seriously though, HOW THE HECK ARE WE VAIN. MOST OF US BELIEVE THAT WE AREN'T REALLY MORE SPECIAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF VANITY.

We should thank the Christian god for creating this for us. Where ever we look, lots and lots of pretty star formations. Very thoughtful of the Christian god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw&feature=player_embedded

we just don't have any better language to describe His being. He neither exists nor does He not exist

The English description based on your definition would be "an impossible concept" nothing more than a romantic collective dream based on wishful desires while clinging to a denial of reality. Given that you do have a very good grasp on science I was hoping that you would limited the scope and power of your god to something more within the bounds of reality. I am truly on Dawkins level 7 with regards to this concept. Given your debating record on this site however I was not expecting you to backtrack or admit you don't know the answer but simply come up with waffle that offers no further realistic credance to how this impossiblity can actually be possible.

Either the Christian god is part of reality or it is not. If part of reality then it must exist. If it exists then it must be within space and must be made of something that also exists e.g. energy of which you are saying the Christian god created. I don't see a way around this. I have been saying this many times, although I don't think I need say it again to as the point has already been made and the rebuttal does not address the point but simply states in a different way the same impossibility.

[Asteriktos]

How can I show you sympathy when you continue to use dishonest discourse, knowingly so no less. I've tried to be sympathetic, and you must remember where you are here. You are in a thread that challenges and discusses these issues. If you don't want your faith or belief in GOD challenged, why are you here? You ought to know better, and ought to know what to expect when you enter these discussions, especially when you choose to engage in them.

Just fyi, whether this type of aggressive questioning/challenging is allowed on this forum has been debated before, though I don't think there was ever any real resolution to the question. Fr. Anastasios (the owner of the site) and the other admins generally err on the side of free speech. One other thing...

6) Is your GOD omnipotent (infinitely knows all there can infinitely ever be known?)

I think you were going for omniscient. That's what happens when you make such long posts 

[TryingtoConvert]

I joined this forum with a relatively open mind but sitting on a 6 on Dawkin's scale. I held onto an Agnostic stance that you can't prove gods one way or another.

The discussion between myself and mina I am now a 7 on Dawkin's scale with regards to Mina's Christian God. I would be keen to know if the authoritative source with regards to Christianity deem that God lives outside of existence and is responsible for the creation of existence. If this is the case then I would be unquestionable 7 towards Christianity as a whole.

[NorthernPines]

TTC, please stop quoting from websites that INVENT "pagan parallels" to Christ whole cloth. Many of those parallels simply are not true! It's hard to take someone seriously when you credulously quote from websites that claim Krishna was crucified. No such doctrine exists in Hinduism. Sorry, try again!

Some of those are interesting, but you don't really want to talk about those do you? Nah, I didn't think so!

[minasoliman]

How can I show you sympathy when you continue to use dishonest discourse, knowingly so no less. I've tried to be sympathetic, and you must remember where you are here. You are in a thread that challenges and discusses these issues. If you don't want your faith or belief in GOD challenged, why are you here? You ought to know better, and ought to know what to expect when you enter these discussions, especially when you choose to engage in them.

Honestly this is what is confusing, because I honestly don't know where I've been dishonest to you.  It's as if you've known me for years or something to claim I'm using dishonest discourse.

I never tagged an attribute of non-existence or existence to God.

Actually you have, more than once. Please re-read your arguments. Don't make me quote you, that's not going to turn out well for you.

Humor me.

Things are only GODS if you worship them as such. Otherwise it's an irrelevant concept simply because anything can be worshiped as a GOD!.

You have to differentiate between what is worshipped and what is God.  Not everyone flies an airplane, that doesn't mean the airplane is subjectively not an airplane to those that don't fly it.  God is God whether or not you worship Him.  Worship is only the result of a person's respect to Him, Who needs no worship anyway.

Eh? Science is only the study of all that is there and nothing more. Are you making the argument that since you feel there should be more, that there is magically more? It's ok if you disagree with my position, but that isn't actually what you are attempting to disagree with. This entire time you have been attempting to disagree with the fundamental rules of existence itself as if that's magically possible. Your GOD can't be made of nothing, can't be infinite, can't be omnipotent, can't be all powerful, can't exist out side the capacity of existence or spatial capacity, can't be a negative dimensional object, can't function or even know itself exists without information, can't create existence, and surely can't create the rules of existence either. The Christian GOD concept is so flawed that it's actually rather ridiculous.

And honestly, when you were a Christian what did you think God was?  What exactly did you believe?

I actually was quite calm, you simply read emotion in that vs actually taking the time to understand the argument. So I will make it really easy for you.

Calm or not, you are eliciting emotion.  I am actually also quite calm in my discussion with you too.

(under your beliefs)
1)  Did your GOD create the 10 commandments
2) Did your GOD create Death?
3) Did your GOD create suffering?
4) Did your GOD kill anything?
5) Do intelligent and wise Leaders lead by example, or do hypocrites make good leaders?
6) Is your GOD omnipotent (infinitely knows all there can infinitely ever be known?)
7) Who at that point would be responsible for when some parent drowns their children in a bathtub for their sins, or when someone commits genocide?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Probably
5. Intelligent and wise leaders lead by example
6. Yes
7. The parent and the genocidal ones are responsible, so they will be held accountable for their actions with God.

Now go Back and read Genesis.

Arrogant anyone?  Hmmmm...how about you go back and read the gospel of John,.

Or maybe, you can give me some verses so that we can have have a discussion.

I don't understand this part of your post.  I thought what I stated here was clearly relevant to the discussion we're having.

This discussion pertains to all GODS, and not just the Christian GOD. Christianity is more specifically used in this argument because Creationism is actually impossible, nor would it be required.

What in the world has creationism to do with this?  We're talking about God, specifically in the Christian concept.  You want to bring other gods into this discussion, be my guest, but you're wasting your own time.  These religions don't even exist anymore.  They have no merit on their own anymore.  If God was certainly true for those religions, they would have never been extinct.  Just because they have aspects of truth doesn't make Christianity "false."

To put this gently, if your GOD is made of something, your argument completely fails. Hence bound to material physicality. If you try to state it's made of non-material (nothing), The GOD concept still fails and self-collapses. Hence, not the answer to existence as it would just be another product of existence. You need to learn what infinite regress is and why no mind, or entity could ever solve infinite regress. It will need a place to exist in, something to be made of, and a complexity at least greater than zero. Just like the rest of us!

What exactly did you belief in God used to entail?

Existence itself is the cause to all that exists and can exist. Not some entity you want to worship as A GOD since itself is bound and slave to those very same rules!

Mistake, you assume that God is bound and slave to the "very same rules."  Where did I profess such a belief?  I don't believe in that.

It can't create that which itself requires to exist. Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, they can not actually create it. Conscious beings can however manipulate it on a very limited scale, such as building cities.

Minds can only be observers and processors of reality, but they can't actually create it.  If that's so, how is do minds "create God?"

Incorrect. Your god requires to be made of something (material physicality),

No!  Never said that!  You want it to be that way.  The fact that I've given you a mysterious definition of God is driving you insane right now because you're unable to make your point unless God is actually within a created cosmos.

requires information to even know itself exists,

No!

requires information to even be conscious,

No!

must have a place to exist,

No!

must be more complex than ground state (zero),

No! Neither more complex or more simple, excited or less so.  He created ground state.

and must be bound to the rules of time...

No! Never said He is bound to the rules of time.  He created time. 

Sorry kiddo but your so called GOD is a logical fallacy.

I'm not sure how you saw logical fallacy when you claim to reiterate things about God I never confessed.

It can't solve infinite regress,

You can't solve infinite regress.  God created infinite regress.

and requires far more cause to exist than you are willing to admit. In fact it would require more cause to exist then either you or I. It's slave to the rules of existence to which itself can not create!

No, it has no cause to exist other than the fact that He just is.  He's not slave to the rules of existence, He created existence and its rules.

Your biggest problem, Existence doesn't require your GOD to exist! Your really have it ass backwards.

Existence most certainly does not disprove God.  God is necessary for man's spiritual needs.  I believe God gave existence a freedom in her laws, and so being part of this existence, I find a need for God to bless my freedom for a fulfilling life.

There are a a lot of things that Falsify Christianity.

Example:

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

This verse in its context talks about a story of Adam being in Paradise, where there's nothing detrimental for Adam until He disobeyed God.  So it's irrelevant to anything outside Paradise (typified as the Garden of Eden).  All the plants in the Garden of Eden are not harmful in it, that is allegory for the Divine Knowledge in Paradise, use it all for growth, except this Tree of Knowledge, you're not ready for it yet.

Actually I do

In fact the bible is poorly written.. And that is being polite..Sorry but the bible can not be considered a history book what-so-ever.. It's utterly laughable to even suggest it is.. The fact that it was written by man completely invalidates it. Much of what is written was stolen from other far more ancient religions than Christianity. It has more contradictions in it than I can even remember atm. Anyone that believes mosses parted the sea or that the world flooded a thousand plus feet above sea level, or that anything in Genesis actually makes any sense is delusional.. The bible only has historical value to itself where it might have embellished stories of common events that scared the piss out of them..

Okay, and?  That doesn't falsify the Bible's inner truths.  I've showed you that for centuries, many Christians did not take these stories literally or believe most of them as true.  In fact, they believed some were indeed embellished only for a greater truth, that is the Truth of Christ.

WORSE YET, CHRISTIANITY IS THE WORSHIPING OF A SUN GOD!

Here you go again...

1) plagiarism, contradiction, and unoriginality of the Bible

Plagiarism, or same culture?  Contradiction to stress different truths.  Unoriginality, or Original in its Christ-bearing prophetic messages?

Jesus and Hercules
* http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hercules.html

*Overcame the serpent and assassination attempts during infancy.
*Divine Father and Mortal Mother.
*Birth prophesied.
*Consoled mother upon time of death with reference to Heaven
*Final words: "It is finished"

Jesus and Dionysus
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dionysus.html

*Dionysus was the god of wine, agriculture, and fertility of nature
*Divine Father, Mortal Virgin Mother
*Healed the sick
*Turned water into wine
*Killed, and resurrected to immortality
*Depicted on a Donkey
*Death was greatest accomplishment delivering humanity

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm

*Worldwide flood caused by rain would destroy everything
*A single righteous man: Ut-Napishtim or Noah
*The main characters were instructed to build an ark of wood with compartments, and have a single door
*The arc settled on a mountain in the Middle East
*Two birds returned to the ark, but not the third
*An animal was offered as a sacrifice upon landing
*The Gods in both stories expressed remorse for what they did

Osiris
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/osiris.html

*Body chopped up and scattered throughout the nation - Judges 20:6
*Virgin mother
*Rose from the grave to judge the souls of the dead

The First video explains why Christianity is the Worshiping of a SUN GOD! And explains the birth of JESUS and why Jesus Birthday celebrated on Dec 25th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKZhd3mJeBE&feature=player_embedded

2) One or More than one GOD?:

23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7

3) Jesus's Story Plagiarized / Copied and Pasted
Note: I lost the source site to the list below..

The story of Jesus is plagiarized from other religions far more ancient than Christianity. This goes beyond Judaism. The bulk can be directly traced to Egyptian religion and worship of the sun god, Horus, who happens to share many important features with Jesus. These features are so identical, the issue cannot be due to coincidence. This is not to say that Horus is the only Pagan god with similar features, but he is one of the most identical to Jesus. Others might be Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or Zoroaster.

1. His mother was a virgin woman: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, Zoroaster
2. He was born on December 25: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
3. His earthly (adopted) father was a carpenter: Jesus, Krishna
4. His birth was signaled by a heavenly star: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
5. At his birth, shepherds presented him with gifts: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
6. He was born in a manger or a cave: Jesus, Dionysus, Mithra
7. As a baby, he is declared a king. Wise men present him with gifts of gold: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
8. Angels or other good divine spirits sang songs or danced at his birth: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
9. He was threatened by a king or tyrant who tried to kill him as an infant: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Moses
10. He was of royal lineage: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
11. He taught at the temple as a child and astounded all who heard him with his wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster
12. He was baptized at a river: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Zoroaster
13. His hapless baptizer is later decapitated: Jesus, Horus
14. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil: Jesus, Zoroaster
15. He was a traveling teacher of great wisdom: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Mithra
16. His ministry preached a message of charity, peace and love. He lived in poverty and loved the poor: Jesus, Krishna
17. He taught of heaven and hell, revealed mysteries, resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse: Jesus, Zoroaster
18. He gave a famous sermon on a mountain: Jesus, Horus
19. He had 12 disciples: Jesus, Horus, Mithra
20. He gave his disciples the power to work miracles: Jesus, Krishna
21. He was transfigured in front of his disciples, sometimes described as shining as the sun: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna
22. He healed the sick and the injured: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Serapis, Zoroaster
23. He cast out demons: Jesus, Horus, Zoroaster
24. He fed hundreds or thousands with magically generated food: Jesus, Buddha
25. He walked on water: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
26. He brought back the dead: Jesus, Horus
27. He turned water into wine: Jesus, Dionysus
28. His followers were admonished to take vows of poverty and renounce worldly desires: Jesus, Buddha
29. He was called such exalted titles as "Lord", "Master", "Light of the World", "Holy One", "Redeemer", "The Way", "The Truth", etc.: Jesus, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
30. He is called "Logos" or "The Word": Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Prometheus, Zoroaster
31. He was called "the anointed one" (how "Christ" translates): Jesus, Dionysus, Horus
32. He was known to his followers as a Shepherd of Humanity: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Serapis
33. He was known as a fisher, associated with the fish: Jesus, Horus
34. He's identified with the ram or lamb: Jesus, Dionysus, Horus, Mithra
35. He's identified with the lion: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
36. He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law: Jesus, Buddha, Horus
37. He rode in a triumphal procession on a donkey: Jesus, Dionysus
38. He condemned the clergy for their ambition and hypocrisy. He would later fall victim to their scheming: Jesus, Krishna
39. He crushed a serpent's head: Jesus, Buddha, Krishna
40. Declared the savior of humanity, slain for our salvation: Jesus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra
41. He sometimes is known by a heart symbol: Jesus, Krishna
42. His body and/or blood is consumed through bread/wine in a symbolic ritual: Jesus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra, Zoroaster
43. He had a sacred cup or grail: Jesus, Zoroaster
44. He died while hung from a cross or a tree: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna
45. His good friend, a fisherman named Peter/Petraeus, would desert him: Jesus, Prometheus
46. He was crucified between two thieves: Jesus, Horus, Krishna
47. He was around the age of 30 when he was crucified: Jesus, Krishna
48. At his death, the sun darkened or there were other grim supernatural signs: Jesus, Krishna
49. He went to the underworld for three days: Jesus, Attis, Mithra
50. He was resurrected: Jesus, Attis, Buddha, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, Mithra
51. He was resurrected during the springtime, the date of which would become a day of celebration among his followers: Jesus, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra
52. His sacred day is Sunday: Jesus, Mithra
53. He is the second part of a divine trinity and/or considered to be one with his father god: Jesus, Attis, Krishna
54. He promises to return one day: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna, Zoroaster
55. When he comes again, he will ride on a white horse to do battle with the prince of evil: Jesus, Krishna

4) Magical Unicorns!:
Deuteronomy 33:17.
"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends."

And More Plagiarism or unoriginality: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/Embryo/BiblecopyGreek.html
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=18212437&blogId=513421273

[/quote] [/quote]

Shows how much you know about Christianity, because all you do is copy and paste information.  You haven't known Christianity at all.  In fact, some of the information here is false, and you lose all credibility now because of it.  For instance Hercules was never prophesied about for centuries before his coming, and his last words were not "it is finished."

Let me ask you this.  Rather than copy and paste, have you read about Krishna, Buddha, Hercules, Dionysius, etc yourself, or do you like to depend on secondary sources to lazily make your point?

And assuming that many of these things occurred before, so what?  This doesn't change anything.  Christianity is still here, and will not die off as most of the other religions.

Fine, there is a chaotic element of positive, negative, and neutral.  How is it that positive and negatives never cancel each other out

They do, a lot. A simple collapse of wave function in electrodynamics is a perfect example. And you are also forgetting that order from chaos is the result from positive, and negative feedback. Order lies at the very edge of chaos. When such things cancel out, you get neutral states, or different results and outcomes.  If you really want to dig deep into this subject, really take the time to study it.

Is this mentioned in Hawking's writings, or should I find another book?  I plan to study it, just not at the moment.

On a forum? They do make science books you know , Internet is a good search tool as well. I'm not going to spend all year teaching you physics, or the entire sum of everything man currently knows. I provided you with a very basic understanding to where the most important aspects of understanding is found in those 3 laws, and ground state. The rest is semantics technically speaking.

I apologize.  As you know, my mind is tailored to biological sciences.  Physics, I only understand fundamentally, and Newtonian at best.  Is there an easy-to-read book where I can get an introductory feel of these teachings?

Did you scientifically validate any of your arguments? Such as that very argument that got you into a logical fallacy that tries to fly in the face of the laws of existence? These laws that can not possibly be written or broken but rather followed and subjected to require in order to exist? You are rejecting the scientific method by making up things as you go along without even being able to back yourself up. What do you expect when you say your GOD exists outside all that exists?

Okay, if to you what I'm saying is scientifically connected in some way, then perhaps, we need time off so that I can read some of these things and get back to you with a better understanding.  Are you a physicist of some sort?

That really proves how much of a fallacy it is. Besides, the concept is purely reliant on your opinion anyways. Other opinions already nullify it. Opinionated concepts are irrelevant.

The point is that nothing can adequately describe God except what has been revealed to us, especially through Christ.  We receive the Holy Spirit that we may grow in God more and comprehend Him more, but it takes forever to do so.  That's the idea.  No science, nothing in all of existence here can adequately describe Him or understand Him.

I don't believe in the concepts of GODS, it's simply not applicable what-so-ever regardless if an entity even existed. Either all things are GODS, or there are no GODS at all.

I'm asking when you were a Christian, what exactly was your idea of God?

You do understand the very contradiction of your post correct? If you have a concept in your head, you have fathomed it.

I can fathom only as much as I can fathom, but He is more.  He became incarnate to lift our minds to Him.

The argument here used however is merely an excuse to believe when it's existence has shown to be irrelevant, impossible, or subjected to the arguments above. It's more Carl Segan's Dragon, and that gets you nowhere in a debate.

It does get no one anywhere in the debate.  I feel like I'm only reiterating my definition.  If it's a logical fallacy, fine.  I think Hawking understood exactly the definition of God, and sees how theists can find God still compatible with what he solved.  He chose His words carefully.  He didn't disprove God, he simply feels God is unnecessary.

You need to get more realistic with your concept before it can be considered even plausible. BTW, you are getting handed the hammer because you keep making irrational and nonsensical arguments. There is so much dishonest discourse in your arguments that it's literally ridiculous.  

I wish I can understand where I'm being dishonest.  I keep asking you when you used to believe in God what was your conception of Him?  If you used to believe in God, then you know where I'm coming from, and thus I'm not trying to be dishonest.  I'm being more honest than anything.

.  To me, not believing in God requires one to live in a dumpster for years and not knowing that you smell bad.

You base your faith on dogma?

That was an analogy.  When people live in a dumpster they don't know what smelling bad is.  When your whole life you think a certain way about existence and about God, you don't know what God really is, and I don't really think you know where I am coming from, and we're just talking past one another.

Please do realize though that there is nothing wrong with what you believe in. Just remember that getting into discussions with opposing views, use honest discourse and arguments. I think you are probably a nice guy who is passionate about his beliefs, I can respect that because I do know what that is like myself

And I too feel you really do care, but somehow either you or I am not getting it.  You accuse me of logical fallacy, but I think you are misrepresenting my ideas about God to begin with!

Perhaps, it's best we start all over.  What do you think Christians think God is?

[TryingtoConvert]

Honestly this is what is confusing, because I honestly don't know where I've been dishonest to you.  It's as if you've known me for years or something to claim I'm using dishonest discourse......SNIPPED

Wow, there is so much delusion in that posted argument to where it's really not even worth responding to  And no, we are not starting this masturbation of circular, deflective, nonsensical, and avoiding pile of irrationality all over again. When you start making dumb arguments like "No, god doesn't need information to know itself exist", its simply not worth arguing anymore. And no, I don't just post information on parallels, I suggest you actually study your religion kiddo. You might also want to check up on the fact that people like Jesus were nearly a dime a dozen where most of that crap was common folklore. How dumb do you really think we are here? It's also not our problem that you can't even understand that you can't defy the rules that govern existence. Your head is simply in the clouds because you can't deal with reality. And I love the answer you gave in regards to "Did your GOD kill anything". Probably? EH? Did you ever even read genesis? And you call me arrogant/ignorant ? And you even go into making fallacious self invented nonsense to rationalize your GODS creation of poisonous plants while telling everyone it's ok to EAT.. Dang, if that isn't attempted murder and genocide, what is?

requires information to even know itself exists,
No!

requires information to even be conscious,
No!

must have a place to exist,
No!

This right here has got to be the dumbest answers ever given, especially after the last ones.. This makes me think you are here trolling or phishing for ignorance, or you really don't comprehend your own arguments what-so-ever.   Buy hey, Atheists will gladly accept your answers here today  

[minasoliman]

Honestly this is what is confusing, because I honestly don't know where I've been dishonest to you.  It's as if you've known me for years or something to claim I'm using dishonest discourse......SNIPPED

Wow, there is so much delusion in that posted argument to where it's really not even worth responding to  And no, we are not starting this masturbation of circular, deflective, nonsensical, and avoiding pile of irrationality all over again. When you start making dumb arguments like "No, god doesn't need information to know itself exist", its simply not worth arguing anymore. And no, I don't just post information on parallels, I suggest you actually study your religion kiddo. You might also want to check up on the fact that people like Jesus were nearly a dime a dozen where most of that crap was common folklore. How dumb do you really think we are here? It's also not our problem that you can't even understand that you can't defy the rules that govern existence. Your head is simply in the clouds because you can't deal with reality. And I love the answer you gave in regards to "Did your GOD kill anything". Probably? EH? Did you ever even read genesis? And you call me arrogant/ignorant ? And you even go into making fallacious self invented nonsense to rationalize your GODS creation of poisonous plants while telling everyone it's ok to EAT.. Dang, if that isn't attempted murder and genocide, what is?

Kiddo huh?  Okay old man?  Whatever you say.

You're saying "go back and read Genesis" as if I don't know what's in Genesis.  That's arrogance.  You're assuming I know nothing of my religion.  I've explained very clearly the context and allegory of "eat all plants" in that specific verse.  Now, you're just being defiant, or in denial, or simply an ass about it.

If you're ready to answer my question, "What did you think God is when you were a Christian," and you're ready to continue in this discussion without your pejorative comments, then this will be all easy.  You actually strike me as having no understanding of Christianity or belief in God whatsoever.  You promised that you would embarrass with quotes of me contradicting myself.

requires information to even know itself exists,
No!

requires information to even be conscious,
No!

must have a place to exist,
No!

This right here has got to be the dumbest answers ever given, especially after the last ones.. This makes me think you are here trolling or phishing for ignorance, or you really don't comprehend your own arguments what-so-ever.   Buy hey, Atheists will gladly accept your answers here today  

I'm not trolling.  You're misrepresenting my beliefs.

[TryingtoConvert]

And that tree of knowledge, apparently your own GOD needs it since it doesn't even know that a bat is not a bird. There are a lot of scientific blunders in the Bible as well. I suppose all of those are "inner truths" to you. If you even bothered to use google, you could educate yourself on why the bible is just a load of idiocy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_bible

You might also want to google all the contradictions within the bible that include said GOD not knowing everything and knowing everything, or that there is just one god while yet being more than one GOD.
So what exactly are you taking literally? Oh, the cherry picking of things you want to take literally?[/u]

No! Never said He is bound to the rules of time. He created time.

This also got me to giggle  . How does one create time since it would take time create time  . How can you have progression of thought without progression or processes. It's entirely moronic. It's right up there with the concept of preexisting existence so one can created existence in order for ones self to exist. Seriously, don't put yourself so low on the IQ meter for the sake of making circular arguments that make no logical sense. If you want to play for ignorance like many Christians do, you have come to the wrong place son!

[TryingtoConvert]

And I do find this funny:

The tragedy is this. That all my memories, all my loved ones, all what I know will be gone. Energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but my whole life can.

This is straight from your own little typing fingers;). BTW, then never will be technically GONE since they are just patterns of matter and energy themselves. Whether or not they remain intact is dependent on if you understand science of if you believe in fallacies because you fear reality.

[Aindriú]

And that tree of knowledge, apparently your own GOD needs it since it doesn't even know that a bat is not a bird. There are a lot of scientific blunders in the Bible as well. I suppose all of those are "inner truths" to you. If you even bothered to use google, you could educate yourself on why the bible is just a load of idiocy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_bible

You might also want to google all the contradictions within the bible that include said GOD not knowing everything and knowing everything, or that there is just one god while yet being more than one GOD.
So what exactly are you taking literally? Oh, the cherry picking of things you want to take literally?[/u]

Cherry picking? Was common sense too much to be used. The "contradictions" listed on that page are hardly scholarly.

For example, the book of Revelation is a vision, with colorful metaphors in every line. Yet, that page makes light of "stars will fall from the sky"...

Or the smallest seed is the mustard seed. I guess he should have said orchid seed, assuming there were any orchids around. He could have been scientifically correct, but then you'd have entire chapters of the bible dedicated to scientific explanations.

Instead, A broad use of metaphors are used to illustrate concepts and ideas, so everyone can understand. Kinda like star trek, when the" flux veriton capacitor will emit tachyons to collapse the space-time graviton Talinberg Phenomenon" which was followed by the other guy saying "kinda like turning the faucet off on the sink"... Well no, stupid, not like that at all, but good enough.

No! Never said He is bound to the rules of time. He created time.

This also got me to giggle  . How does one create time since it would take time create time  . How can you have progression of thought without progression or processes. It's entirely moronic. It's right up there with the concept of preexisting existence so one can created existence in order for ones self to exist. Seriously, don't put yourself so low on the IQ meter for the sake of making circular arguments that make no logical sense. If you want to play for ignorance like many Christians do, you have come to the wrong place son!

This makes God a man or material, instead of "greater" than the very creation He creates (beyond time, matter, and space).

[Sleeper]

Wait...is TryingtoConvert under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

[Sleeper]

"It seems obvious to me that the peculiar vapidity of New Atheist literature is simply a reflection of the more general vapidity of all public religious discourse these days, believing and unbelieving alike. In part, of course, this is because the modern media encourage only fragmentary, sloganeering, and emotive debates, but it is also because centuries of the incremental secularization of society have left us with a shared grammar that is perhaps no longer adequate to the kinds of claims that either reflective faith or reflective faithlessness makes.

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with, that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral “truths,” their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?

I am not—honestly, I am not—simply being dismissive here. The utter inconsequentiality of contemporary atheism is a social and spiritual catastrophe. Something splendid and irreplaceable has taken leave of our culture—some great moral and intellectual capacity that once inspired the more heroic expressions of belief and unbelief alike. Skepticism and atheism are, at least in their highest manifestations, noble, precious, and even necessary traditions, and even the most fervent of believers should acknowledge that both are often inspired by a profound moral alarm at evil and suffering, at the corruption of religious institutions, at psychological terrorism, at injustices either prompted or abetted by religious doctrines, at arid dogmatisms and inane fideisms, and at worldly power wielded in the name of otherworldly goods. In the best kinds
of unbelief, there is something of the moral grandeur of the prophets—a deep and admirable abhorrence of those vicious idolatries that enslave minds and justify our worst cruelties.

But a true skeptic is also someone who understands that an attitude of critical suspicion is quite different from the glib abandonment of one vision of absolute truth for another—say, fundamentalist Christianity for fundamentalist materialism or something vaguely and inaccurately called “humanism.” Hume, for instance, never traded one dogmatism for another, or one facile certitude for another. He understood how radical were the implications of the skepticism he recommended, and how they struck at the foundations not only of unthinking faith, but of proud rationality as well.

A truly profound atheist is someone who has taken the trouble to understand, in its most sophisticated forms, the belief he or she rejects, and to understand the consequences of that rejection. Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe."

- David Bentley Hart

[TryingtoConvert]

Wait...is TryingtoConvert under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

Can you explain how orthodoxy isn't based on the bible or how christianity would even be more than a small cult if nobody thought of the bible as valid?

[TryingtoConvert]

Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe."

Yet another apologist harping on tone so he doesn't have to deal with he content of any actually arguments put forth. Because I'm sure if he's read, say, Hitchen's "God is Not Great" he would have found the entire book was "Wah! God is a big dumb meany!" This whole blurb of his amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem and a generalization of whatever "New Atheists" are suppose to be. (As far as I can tell it describes modern atheists who are critical of religion, as oppose to some false non-existent cute n' cuddly teddy bear atheists who got in line and never said anything bad about religion, whom apologists get all nostalgic about. Sorry to say, but people have been calling BS on religion for centuries.)

[Sleeper]

Among the New Atheists, there is no one of whom this can be said, and the movement as a whole has yet to produce a single book or essay that is anything more than an insipidly doctrinaire and appallingly ignorant diatribe."

Yet another apologist harping on tone so he doesn't have to deal with he content of any actually arguments put forth. Because I'm sure if he's read, say, Hitchen's "God is Not Great" he would have found the entire book was "Wah! God is a big dumb meany!" This whole blurb of his amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem and a generalization of whatever "New Atheists" are suppose to be. (As far as I can tell it describes modern atheists who are critical of religion, as oppose to some false non-existent cute n' cuddly teddy bear atheists who got in line and never said anything bad about religion, whom apologists get all nostalgic about. Sorry to say, but people have been calling BS on religion for centuries.)

Oh, he gives a completely thorough treatment to their arguments in his newest book, as well as the rest of the article from which this quote was taken.  He longs for the days when atheists had reasonable arguments to consider.  So do I, frankly.  Atheism today is a sad state of affairs.

[Sleeper]

Wait...is TryingtoConvert under the impression that Orthodoxy is based upon the Bible?  Or that Christianity's foundations are threatened in any way if the validity of the Bible is called into question?

Can you explain how orthodoxy isn't based on the bible or how christianity would even be more than a small cult if nobody thought of the bible as valid?

Orthodoxy is an historical movement out of which the Bible came, not the other way around.  The New Testament is describing something that is already taking place and is written to churches that already exist.  It is not the source.

You can point out errors all day long, find every apparent logical inconsistency, every scientific fact it got wrong and you won't hear much from Orthodox Christians besides, "That's interesting."  Nothing is riding on the Bible for us.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Criticism of Atheism