Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Flaws in the Christian concept of God

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Please note that this is an original work. Not necessairly the ideas or arguments, but the composition of the essay, was done by me personally.
Please read before you slate it, the discussion in there is quite widely held by philosophers.

Stephen F. Roberts
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours.

I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of
ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is
no reason to consider any of them. [Bertrand Russell]

Issues in Philosophy with Relation to God

God. If we define him using the traditional view of an infinite being whom is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, then we come up with many flaws and contradictions.

I will analyze each of these qualities in term and from there reveal the flaws.

All-Knowing;
God is traditionally thought of as being 'outside time', and unaffected by time. Thus, if we asked God what the time was, how would he respond? Even if God did know the
time currently (thus implying he is inside time and in itself causing further issues), he would not KNOW the time in other parts of the world. Another issue, is that if
God knows EVERYTHING, then this flaw comes up: I have the knowledge that "I am sitting in this chair". Does God know "I am sitting in this chair"? Surely not, as he is not.
God may know that there is "a person sitting in this chair" but he most surely does not know "I am sitting in this chair" or else that lays claim that I am God, which has
more flaws than I particularly feel the need to go in to, as it is easily dismissed. The standard dualist issues come up, for example, Does God know what the emotion of
maddness is? Or does God know the effect and direct feeling of testosterone in the body? Or does he know the taste of food, the smell of coffee, etc.
Because if he does, then he must surely have a body, which means he must be inside time. I will discuss the flaws of being inside time later.

Futhermore, if God is all-powerful, does he have the ability to make a six-sided pentagon? Or make 2 + 2 = 6? Surely it is impossible to make a six-sided five-sided shape,
this is just a pathetic contradiction in terms. Some people may argue that God can make 2 + 2 = 6, but by definition of 2, 2 + 2 = 4. This is perhaps easier to illustrate
with the six-sided pentagon. For God to be able to make a six-sided five-sided shape, he has to completely go against the meaning of the words.

Next, we use the example of lifting rocks. If God is truly all-powerful (and therefore all-capable), he will be able to create a rock that he can lift regardless of it's
weight. Yet, we can only lift up to a certain weight in rocks, so we have the ability to not lift a rock (through no fault of our own). So, from this, can God create a rock
that is too heavy for him to lift? For if he can, then he cannot lift it, and he cannot be all-powerful. Yet, if he cannot make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift,
then once again, he cannot be all-powerful. Thus, we have an ability that God does not.

Returning to the issue of whether or not God is inside time, both are problematic. Since it seems logical that God exists and operates inside time, we must look at this
primarily.

God, if inside time, will, by definition, have a past that has happened, a present that is happening, and a future that will happen. If God has a future that will happen
and a past that has happened, then this presents dangerous limitations on him. It means that he has no control on whether or not something will happen, or the flow of time.
However, it is dangerous to switch the arguments to that "God is outside time", if we use the traditional Christian/Western theological views. The Bible has many cases
where God is performing an action, e.g. "God spoke" or "God appeared", etc. The use of a verb here means that God was at a moment in time, and instantly gives him a
specific location inside of time.

The main flaw of being inside time, is this; "God created the universe". This is a very widely accepted view. The Bible preaches that God "created all existance". If this
is true, then god simply must be OUTSIDE of time. It is now believed that space and time are directly linked, and therefore, before the universe, time did not exist at all.

The Bible constantly attributes some actions to God, and since to perform an action always requires a tense, God must have been inside time at a certain point. So, for
sake of argument, we will allow God to modulate and fluctuate in and out of time as necessary. Yet this is a flawed idea. After all, how can a being who is outside of time
pick a specific moment inside of time for him to appear, or otherwise perform actions. Furthermore, once inside time, how can God leave time? The lack of ability for God
to pick a specific moment can perhaps be resolved by saying God randomly enters time and from there can travel freely forward and backwards. Yet this means that God has to
live a past that he should have already been through. This is similar to the Grandfather paradox in time travel philosophy, and is totally contradictory in terms.

If, we accept the fact that God has a history, present, future, then this will limit his powers.

If we now analyze his all-lovingness, consider the evil in the world. If we couple the qualities of "all-loving" with "all-powerful" it is only logical to say that God
intended for evil to occur. Yet if this is true, he is not all-lowing, and hence, not perfectly good, or perfect.

In fact, if God plans the future (which can be debated through ideas of fate and destiny), then he plans evil to happen. An all-loving God certainly would not PLAN evil to
occur. Furthermore, there are many contrary statements in the Bible. It says that God destroys cities and people if he pleases (eg Babylon), thus not everyone can be
"redeemed" despite their sins. The Bible is quite inconsistent about this point.

In short, we can only conclude, that God is either all-loving but most certainly not all-powerful (e.g. willing but not able to destroy evil), or all-powerful but certainly
not all-loving (e.g. able but not willing), and this leaves us with the problem of God not being perfect. After all, what sort of God would you want, one that cannot stop
evil, even if he wanted to, or one that causes evil? Both have disturbing implications.

Now, we will experiment with the idea of God being wholly perfect and incomprehensible to the human mind. Basically, God is now ineffable. Yet if he is truly beyond human
understanding, then why does the Bible constantly attribute qualities and give metaphors to God. It even says "God created man in his image".

So, let's take the converse. If God is iminent and a part of the universe, he must be limited, as previously demonstrated. It is now a no-win situation, as often is the
case when describing God. It is simply too inconsistent.

Another issue is one of dualism. If God truly did create all existance, then at one point, he must jus thave been a mind. Yet his ability to violate energy conservation
laws that hold true in any other situation is strange, to say the least. The only logical product from this negates the Bible and means that God is physical, and has a vast
store of energy.

But, interestingly, if God is physical then he must occupy certain space and certain time, which raises previous issues. It only seems logical now that God does not exist
in the traditional Biblical view.

Simply put, if God is physical, we can find him.

Historically, my personal belief is that when people thousands of years ago tried to explain all existance, for them, the only logical cause of this was a Divine Being, or
perhaps beings. Yet in the modern age, with increasing scientific knowledge, many alternative explanations exist for how we came into being, and with these exist evidence
and logical reasoning, unlike the concept of God.

The manifestation of imagination is a powerful thing, and people can be easily fooled by it.

Returning to the idea of God's all-lovingness, the Bible describes God as being a "just and merciful" God. Justice is being defined as "giving people what they deserve",
and being merciful, is defined as "forgiving people/not giving people what they deserve". Both are clearly complete contradiction in terms if used alongside each other.
Yet, God seems to be able to give justice to some people, and forgive others. It is a very confusing idea.

An interesting idea is relating to good things. There are two main thoughts here. Either "Something is good because God loves it" or "God loves something because it is good
If we use the idea that "something is good because God loves it", then since there is evil, God cannot be all-loving. We also have to consider, would murder be considered
Good if God commanded it to be? Clearly, this thought train is flawed.
So, we have to use "God loves something because it is good". This means the idea, and manifestation, of "good" already exists. This limits God because it is thus external
to him. Either way, we have an issue of being all-loving or all-powerful coming up.

From here, I think it is fair to say that the classical view of God from the Bible has been completely broken apart and shown to be rather flawed.

In the modern age, we need a more contemporary view of God which fits our evidence.

Perhaps using an idea of God whom created the universe simply because he can, and who otherwise does not care about it (simply, because, he can), and does not concern
himself much about it except to marvel at it's self-sustaining abilities, and would rather spend his metaphysical time in a metaphysical pub getting metaphysically drunk,
where the laws of physics and nature simply occur because they are the most probable consequence from a host of causes (or perhaps by definition true). Evolution, for
example, is a relatively logical process with out modern ideas of science, and is one of the main causes for our personal existance.

When, rather than if, we come into contact with extra-terristorial beings, an interesting part of the Bible will basically be ruined. For we will then not be the only
"intelligent race" (perhaps we will not even be an intelligent race when compared to the aliens!). But most fundamentally, we will not be the only race who have to toil
and labour, as described in the Bible, because we supposedly "ate fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge".

A more extravagant possibility that has previously been brought up is that we were seeded onto the earth, and for unknown reasons, (perhaps to create a utopian society, who
knows), the "seeders" (lets say aliens for ease of argument), taught us morality, obidence, etc, and invented a fictional enforcer for us to be afraid of, as a punishment
for violation of the lessons we have been taught.

I believe that the classical Gods are the product of irrationality, and lesser knowledge, and hav been antiquated and obseleted by virtue of modern science. Perhaps the
only reason the ideas of them still exist are because people do not explore the possibility that they dont exist, as much as they should, and may be due to the consistent
bombardment we have as children in Christianity (being taught at all schools, to children of 3+, how appalling and unsupportive of open-minded-ness), to the extent that
we accept them as part of everyday life, and never truly do question the ideas. The theory of religion should be left undiscussed with children until they are old enough
to examine the evidence for themself and make their own decisions! I no longer see any logical reason, at all, for belief in the concept of God. Little factual evidence
has been produced for it (miracles, etc, are quite easily dismantled), and as for The Bible's account of Jesus Christ, well, we have no real unbiased proof (except one very
biased book) that he preformed the actions attributed to him. In fact, if Jesus Christ was a man, as is often described as, similar to one of us, he must have a DNA make up
and since he emerged from Mary, who was a virgin, we either have two things to draw from this. One, that Jesus was an exact replica of Mary, yet Jesus was male and Mary was
female, or two, God has DNA. Potentially, we can use the argument that God 'edited' or 'genetically modified' Jesus' DNA as appropiate, but surely it is just easier to
accept the fact that Mary and Joseph did what nearly the rest of mankind have done. Occum's razor is quite a handy tool in the analyzing of God.




posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
well there is more wrong in the qu'aran than the bilbe , like allah came from a man,its ok to smack woman,non muslims are basicaly enemy.



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Fine, but I am discussing the Christian view of God here. It is not degrees of correct/incorectness, it is whether or not the ideas of God are plausible.
If I was discussing the topic you are discussing, the essay would be entitled something along the lines of "Is Christianity hypocritic" or "Is Christianity a morally justified religion, historically in terms of its actions"
But I didnt. The essay is entitled "Issues In Philosophy with Relation to God" but more specifically, should be entitled (sorry, I should change the name) "Flaws in the Christian/Western concepts of God"



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rugoolian
its ok to smack woman,non muslims are basicaly enemy.


Did the inquisition prove any differently?




posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
If you dont have anything to debate about the content of the post, that's fine, I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about the quality of the post.... feedback appreciated



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
If you dont have anything to debate about the content of the post, that's fine, I'm just wondering what everyone thinks about the quality of the post.... feedback appreciated



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The first few questions that you are asking have a basic flaw. The question itself is set up to create a non-possible or non-agreeable result. I could easily pose such a difficult question for you.

"Yes or No...Did you stop beating your wife?"

See, you can not win since the question is formulated for failure. So questions like, "Can God make a rock he can't lift" really are quite pointless.

The most damming argument against the absence of God is the second law of thermodynamics. Not a theory mind you, a law.

"In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases."

A cup of ice water warms to room temperature, and you coffee cup will eventually grow cold as the room it is in. These are observable facts that you can prove at home. We do no loose energy when this happens, we simply disperse it evenly. Now taking into account that the sun is hotter than it's surrounding area, we can easily see that an eternity has not passed, else the sun as all other stars, would be at an equal temperature with their surroundings. Given an infinite amount of time a finite amount of energy (the universe) would equalize and it would no longer be possible to perform work. Since I am still typing, I'll assume that this has not happened yet.

The conclusion from these observations, (and my continued typing) is that the universe had a beginning, and we could logically say that anything with a beginning has a cause. What is that cause? It would need to be something outside of the universe, and something with immense power and an ability to cause the explosion from singularity (Big Bang) to cause order instead of disorder.

A creator would need to be outside of these three dimensions, and would would have to exist outside of space time in order to have created it. This doesn't mean that he can't interact with our 3 dimensional world. This is explained quite well at this site (Fancy drawings and all)



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Conservation of Energy
If God was able to move (lets say... convert some energy to Kinetic Energy) a rock, then he must have a source of energy from which to do that. In most human cases, this is Chemical Energy -> Kinetic Energy. Where does God draw his energy from? It violates the conservation of energy laws, God creates energy.
Yes, that law of thermodynamics does apply, but you fail to account for the fact that we can convert heat energy into electrical energy, among others. Most power plants run off this principle... aka steam drives a turbine... Not only this, but through processes like fusion, we can produce alot of heat energy for power useage, and fusion is exactly what occurs during the big bang.
Questions like "Can God make a rock he cant lift" are in no sense pointless. It's questions like that that most of modern philosophy are based upon. It's a completely a priori question and is completely valid

And it's not like "Yes or No did you stop beating your wife"
It's an inquiring question into the nature of God. And it's a very widely used question in the Philosophy of Religion. See here



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Have you ever been completely certain of something just to find out you're wrong? Sure, we all have. Do remember what it felt like or the conclusion you drew when you realized you were wrong? You're trying to put God in a box with your mortal mind, your knowledge is limited. For example; what if tomorrow time travel was invented. What would all the people who said it was impossible say then? "Oh, I never considered that."



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Ironically, I am a physicist, I dont believe time travel is impossible, just... not what the common person expects it to be.
I've addressed the point of God being described by mortals, it's in the part where I discuss God being "ineffable". Please do note, that most of the points in the text, were lectured to me by a person who holds a PhD in Philosophy and had it marked by Robert Swinburne,....


edit; This is like most of the modern thought train of philosophy when it comes to disproofs/counter-arguments to God's existance.. it's not something someone off the street put together, it's the modern-day cutting edge thought train.. Like the M-Theory of Philosophy of religion.

[edit on 21-9-2004 by browha]



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I would agree that the Christian idea of God is not just flawed, but flatly incorrect and a dangerous thing to govern your life with, or even worse, govern somebody elses life with, which seems to be the whole point of most religions anyway. God is probably more simple yet at the same time more complex than we can wrap our puny human mentalities around. Your first quote by Stephen F. Roberts is the telling one. It is very likely that none of us here on this planet have the least idea of what God is, wants, or might require from us if God requires anything from us at all.

I think it is the height of human arrogance and hubris to bring God down to our level by assigning to God, human attributes, emotions, and motivations. Every religion does it except for a few inwardly focused eastern religions.

One mistake people make is to equate the act of creating the universe with being all-powerful and all-knowing, the typical god-like qualities. True, from our level the creation of a universe seems like a pretty big deal, especially since we occupy and know about such a very very small part of it. But the universe isn't infinite, therefore it has limits, which means there may be something else out there which exceeds those limits. On the scale at which "God" operates, who knows? Certainly not anyone who claims to, like the comfortably religious.

I do however believe in the idea that there is a design behind the universe and how it seems to function. There is a subtle elegance and a sometimes ruthless efficiency to how things work. We see the same patterns, the same behaviors for the most part, from the subatomic to the macrocosmic. Once again, it looks to be just a matter of scale. No matter what level you look at it from, it appears to be all about spherical and elliptical constructs, and spin. However, I believe this from my personal observations of reality, not because someone told me to, and I'm not about to say I know with any certainty that the above is true. I could be wrong about almost everything and am the first to admit it.

Here is the bottom line. Any religion, Christianity included, that says we know the truth and the rest of you are wrong is flawed. Furthermore, the danger is that once you know you are then free to not think about the issue anymore. You can stop searching for the truth, since you know it. You can stop collecting data. You can stop observing phenomena. You can stop thinking and analyzing facts. Its also convenient that at the same time, you can abdicate your moral and ethical responsibilities and let someone else tell you how to live (or die in Gods name). That is the true flaw in Christianity and most other religions you care to name that focus on a specific deity.



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
The funny part of the whole God debate is that for the first few centuries most christians couldn't agree on how many Gods existed.



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Ah, yes, the Teological Argument..
One of Hume's criticisms is that you cannot apply an idea of part of the system to the whole. You may be interested in looking up the flaws of the Teological argument (Also known as the Argument from Design, saying that God designed the universe).. It used to be one of the main proofs for God until Hume and Darwin ripped it apart..

I did discuss God being ineffable, and the flaw with that is that the Bible constantly attributes actions to him, and describes God, and is self-contradictory if we assume God is ineffable.

I was not attributing the act of creation of the universe with all-powerful and all-knowing, I was just saying if we assume these qualities they are flawed



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
A bit of truth found in a work of Fiction.....


"The arguement goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exsist,' says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
" But,' says Man, " the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exsist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
" 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Quote from "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"
By Douglas Adams
(1952 - 2001)

Much like those that Quote from the Bible... A few interesting truths found in a work of "Fiction".....



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Hmmmm. I'm not sure I was exactly saying that "God" designed the universe just that I have seen evidence of a design, which could I suppose imply a designer. Perhaps it is just the nature of things and didn't require anything to set it into motion. I am the first to say I don't know. Maybe white lab mice are behind it....

The "First Cause" argument has always seemed fairly solid to me, though, and my gut tells me there is more to it all than just accident, but again that could just be my human pride and natural subconscienous fear of the possibility that it's all random and purposeless. LOL.

Just like I follow my gut instinct on "time travel" where I agree with you somewhat that where it may be possible in a purely technical sense with weird obscure particles and limited effects and/or timespans, I don't believe it's possible on any type of practical or useful level for highly organized matter. You can slow down time or speed it up depending on how fast you are moving relative (damn, there's that word!) to other things, but you can't just jump around in and out of the "timestream", can you? Again, I could be wrong....



posted on Sep, 21 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
i was just saying what i did because u cant just say christian concept on religon as that is kinna bias, u could have stated concepts of religon in genreal and god on genreal not just single out the 1 faith



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I singled out Christianty because it contains most, if not all, of the western theological views. If I knew much more than I do about Islam, then perhaps I would write up something about that too, but I dont.



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
I singled out Christianty because it contains most, if not all, of the western theological views. If I knew much more than I do about Islam, then perhaps I would write up something about that too, but I dont.




Hey Browha, I've to give you applause for that.. You seem to be a person that knows and admits the limits of their knowledge, and doesn't go off talking alot of crap about things they've little to no knowledge of...You ask for others opinions while clearly stating your own. Clearly a True seeker of truth.



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Very good post. It can be quite evident from reading this that our brains are just a tad too small to comprehend what reality is.

Sure, there may be flaws in the bible or any man-made writing, but it is, in reality, too illogical for there to be no 'grand architect of the universe'. Just because you don't understand it is no base to not believe.

But hey, it is your life and soul - do with it what you will.



posted on Sep, 22 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Stephen F. Roberts
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours.


By definition, S. F. Roberts would be a theist who believed in 0 gods.


All-Knowing;
God is traditionally thought of as being 'outside time', and unaffected by time. Thus, if we asked God what the time was, how would he respond? Even if God did know the
time currently (thus implying he is inside time and in itself causing further issues), he would not KNOW the time in other parts of the world. Another issue, is that if
God knows EVERYTHING, then this flaw comes up: I have the knowledge that "I am sitting in this chair". Does God know "I am sitting in this chair"? Surely not, as he is not.
God may know that there is "a person sitting in this chair" but he most surely does not know "I am sitting in this chair" or else that lays claim that I am God, which has
more flaws than I particularly feel the need to go in to, as it is easily dismissed. The standard dualist issues come up, for example, Does God know what the emotion of
maddness is? Or does God know the effect and direct feeling of testosterone in the body? Or does he know the taste of food, the smell of coffee, etc.
Because if he does, then he must surely have a body, which means he must be inside time. I will discuss the flaws of being inside time later.


"I" is a construct of the mind. In reality, "you" are simply a collection of energy. That collection of energy sits in your chair. "You" are part of the whole.

Madness is not an emotion.


Futhermore, if God is all-powerful, does he have the ability to make a six-sided pentagon? Or make 2 + 2 = 6? Surely it is impossible to make a six-sided five-sided shape,
this is just a pathetic contradiction in terms. Some people may argue that God can make 2 + 2 = 6, but by definition of 2, 2 + 2 = 4. This is perhaps easier to illustrate
with the six-sided pentagon. For God to be able to make a six-sided five-sided shape, he has to completely go against the meaning of the words.


Labels. How a person labels something has nothing to do with the reality of that something. A person who is Red/Green color blind would label both of those colors the same. God exists beyond the need for words.

Using Fortran, 2 + 2 = 6 is simply a matter of redefining the number 2. In essence it is changing what the label represent.



Next, we use the example of lifting rocks. If God is truly all-powerful (and therefore all-capable), he will be able to create a rock that he can lift regardless of it's
weight. Yet, we can only lift up to a certain weight in rocks, so we have the ability to not lift a rock (through no fault of our own). So, from this, can God create a rock
that is too heavy for him to lift? For if he can, then he cannot lift it, and he cannot be all-powerful. Yet, if he cannot make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift,
then once again, he cannot be all-powerful. Thus, we have an ability that God does not.


"Too heavy" is a construct of the mind. It is created by one's inability to move something in a particular direction. In reality, nothing is "too heavy".

Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.


Returning to the issue of whether or not God is inside time, both are problematic. Since it seems logical that God exists and operates inside time, we must look at this
primarily.


Space-time is a construct of the human mind to measure change. God exists in all points in space. God exists in all points in time. But, God does not change, so is beyond the concepts of space-time.


However, it is dangerous to switch the arguments to that "God is outside time", if we use the traditional Christian/Western theological views. The Bible has many cases
where God is performing an action, e.g. "God spoke" or "God appeared", etc. The use of a verb here means that God was at a moment in time, and instantly gives him a
specific location inside of time.


In the bible, the majority of the actions performed we done by angels of God. However, this point is moot since God is in all points of time simultaneously.


The main flaw of being inside time, is this; "God created the universe". This is a very widely accepted view. The Bible preaches that God "created all existance". If this
is true, then god simply must be OUTSIDE of time. It is now believed that space and time are directly linked, and therefore, before the universe, time did not exist at all.


Inside and outside are both constructs of the human mind. Concepts created by boundaries. God knows no boundaries. So the perception of Inside and outside does not apply to God.


The Bible constantly attributes some actions to God, and since to perform an action always requires a tense, God must have been inside time at a certain point.


Hebrew has only one tense.


If we now analyze his all-lovingness, consider the evil in the world. If we couple the qualities of "all-loving" with "all-powerful" it is only logical to say that God
intended for evil to occur. Yet if this is true, he is not all-lowing, and hence, not perfectly good, or perfect.


Evil is a result of free will. Free will is the choice to love or not. That he gives all his creations this choice and does not prevent one from making the choices indeed shows he is "all-loving".


In fact, if God plans the future (which can be debated through ideas of fate and destiny), then he plans evil to happen. An all-loving God certainly would not PLAN evil to
occur. Furthermore, there are many contrary statements in the Bible. It says that God destroys cities and people if he pleases (eg Babylon), thus not everyone can be
"redeemed" despite their sins. The Bible is quite inconsistent about this point.


If you apply the "many worlds quantum theory" to this, it should be rather plain to see that at least one parallel world exists in which all made the choice to love.


In short, we can only conclude, that God is either all-loving but most certainly not all-powerful (e.g. willing but not able to destroy evil), or all-powerful but certainly
not all-loving (e.g. able but not willing), and this leaves us with the problem of God not being perfect. After all, what sort of God would you want, one that cannot stop
evil, even if he wanted to, or one that causes evil? Both have disturbing implications.


In short, many of your arguments are flawed. Any conclusion based on flawed arguments is inconclusive.


Now, we will experiment with the idea of God being wholly perfect and incomprehensible to the human mind. Basically, God is now ineffable. Yet if he is truly beyond human
understanding, then why does the Bible constantly attribute qualities and give metaphors to God. It even says "God created man in his image".


It is the nature of a child to seek to understand that which is not understood. Unanswered questions lead to confusion. Confusion leads to doubt. Doubt leads to rejection.

All these things are simply answers to questions.


Another issue is one of dualism. If God truly did create all existance, then at one point, he must jus thave been a mind. Yet his ability to violate energy conservation
laws that hold true in any other situation is strange, to say the least. The only logical product from this negates the Bible and means that God is physical, and has a vast
store of energy.


The laws of thermodynamics only apply to a closed system. God knows no limits.

If God's energy is infinite, and God uses a finite amount of energy to create all that is, how much of God's energy remains?

Infinity minus X = ? where X is not infinity.




But, interestingly, if God is physical then he must occupy certain space and certain time, which raises previous issues. It only seems logical now that God does not exist
in the traditional Biblical view.


Logic based on flawed perception is illogical.


Simply put, if God is physical, we can find him.


Seek and you will find.


Historically, my personal belief is that when people thousands of years ago tried to explain all existance, for them, the only logical cause of this was a Divine Being, or
perhaps beings. Yet in the modern age, with increasing scientific knowledge, many alternative explanations exist for how we came into being, and with these exist evidence
and logical reasoning, unlike the concept of God.


God does not defy logic. God simply defies perception on which one bases their logic.


The manifestation of imagination is a powerful thing, and people can be easily fooled by it.


This is a lovely statement. However, it is not entirely accurate. Manifestations of the mind are powerful things. People can be easily fooled by it. Perception is a construct of the mind. Don't be fooled by what you perceive.


Returning to the idea of God's all-lovingness, the Bible describes God as being a "just and merciful" God. Justice is being defined as "giving people what they deserve",
and being merciful, is defined as "forgiving people/not giving people what they deserve". Both are clearly complete contradiction in terms if used alongside each other.
Yet, God seems to be able to give justice to some people, and forgive others. It is a very confusing idea.


One must ask for forgiveness. Justice is given to all.


An interesting idea is relating to good things. There are two main thoughts here. Either "Something is good because God loves it" or "God loves something because it is good
If we use the idea that "something is good because God loves it", then since there is evil, God cannot be all-loving. We also have to consider, would murder be considered
Good if God commanded it to be? Clearly, this thought train is flawed.
So, we have to use "God loves something because it is good". This means the idea, and manifestation, of "good" already exists. This limits God because it is thus external
to him. Either way, we have an issue of being all-loving or all-powerful coming up.


Good and evil are constructs of the mind. What one man perceives as "good" another might perceive as "evil". In reality there is only love, and the choice not to love.


From here, I think it is fair to say that the classical view of God from the Bible has been completely broken apart and shown to be rather flawed.


"Fair" is a construct of the mind. I would say that you have yet to provide a logical argument to show anything to be flawed except one's perception. Hence, I would say it is "not fair" to say any such thing.


Perhaps using an idea of God whom created the universe simply because he can, and who otherwise does not care about it (simply, because, he can), and does not concern
himself much about it except to marvel at it's self-sustaining abilities, and would rather spend his metaphysical time in a metaphysical pub getting metaphysically drunk,
where the laws of physics and nature simply occur because they are the most probable consequence from a host of causes (or perhaps by definition true). Evolution, for
example, is a relatively logical process with out modern ideas of science, and is one of the main causes for our personal existance.


Except, this does not fit my evidence.



When, rather than if, we come into contact with extra-terristorial beings, an interesting part of the Bible will basically be ruined. For we will then not be the only
"intelligent race" (perhaps we will not even be an intelligent race when compared to the aliens!). But most fundamentally, we will not be the only race who have to toil
and labour, as described in the Bible, because we supposedly "ate fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge".


I do not see where the bible will be ruined. It says this earth was made for man. It says nothing about other planets and other life. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I believe that the classical Gods are the product of irrationality, ... I no longer see any logical reason, at all, for belief in the concept of God.


What you believe is your choice. This is the nature of free will. But I would not call your reasoning logical.


Little factual evidence
has been produced for it (miracles, etc, are quite easily dismantled), and as for The Bible's account of Jesus Christ, well, we have no real unbiased proof (except one very
biased book) that he preformed the actions attributed to him. In fact, if Jesus Christ was a man, as is often described as, similar to one of us, he must have a DNA make up
and since he emerged from Mary, who was a virgin, we either have two things to draw from this. One, that Jesus was an exact replica of Mary, yet Jesus was male and Mary was
female, or two, God has DNA. Potentially, we can use the argument that God 'edited' or 'genetically modified' Jesus' DNA as appropiate, but surely it is just easier to
accept the fact that Mary and Joseph did what nearly the rest of mankind have done.


Or three: God "said BE" and it was.



Occum's razor is quite a handy tool in the analyzing of God.


entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'

But yet your arguements are based within the confines of multiplied entities.

Inside-outside.
Past-present-future
Here-there
2 + 2 = something
good-evil
past tense - present tense

Ockham's razor is a handy tool in analyzing God. I encourage you to use it.

.



[edit on 22-9-2004 by Raphael_UO]









 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join