It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Caught Between Incredibility and Contradiction

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Everyone here is familiar with the conflict between Christians and atheists. Creationism versus evolution. Obviously, fossils prove evolution. Then again, we have a hundred accounts of different events and people in the Bible. And if we discount because of plausibility, how do we trust any other documentation from Egyptian and Sumerian times? Or African or...anywhere, really?

Which one do we believe? How can we tell?

Here are the arguments against the existence of the Christian "God"*:

Disproof of God


Objection (1)

God's moral goodness does not concern His feelings; rather they concern His action and the principle of His action. Thus premise (1) is false.

Answer:

Now it is true that sometimes in judging the moral quality of a person one takes account only of his action and the principle of his action. A person who did good deeds all of his life and who acted on moral principles would normally be considered a good person. But still we would consider such a person better if there were not envy or lust in his heart. In any case, it is inconceivable to the ordinary religious believer that God's good action and purpose should hide His feelings of lust and envy. People demand that in God at least--who is their moral Ideal--the feelings of lust and envy should not exist.

Objection (2)

If God had the feelings of lust and envy and this affected Him, this would indeed detract from his moral goodness. However, God because of His great powers need not let these feelings affect Him. Thus premise (1) is false.

Answer:

It is difficult to know what 'affect Him' means here. Envy and lust are feelings that must affect the person that has them. One need not succumb to such feelings to be affected by them. By definition they do have some effect, i.e. these feelings involve certain strivings in the person that has them. Just because God may never be overcome by these feelings is not enough. The mere fact that He has had them would take away from His moral goodness on the common view.

Moreover, unless God sometimes did succumb to envy or lust this would detract from His knowledge and He would know less than some men. To say Jones has known succumbing to lust is presumably to say that Jones once experienced this succumbing himself, i.e. he once succumbed. If God lacked this knowledge, He would know less than Jones in one respect at least.

________________________________________
25

Objection (3)

God's knowledge is only propositional knowledge. Thus premise (3) is false.

Answer:

This argument seems to me to be mistaken at least as far as a common view of God goes. Indeed, I would argue that the more personal a view of God one has--and most ordinary people have a very personal view of God--the more mistaken this retort is. People who tend to think of God as a person naturally tend to think of Him as having many characteristics of persons and this includes the sort of knowledge that persons have. And this knowledge includes more than propositional knowledge.

Objection (4)

Since God is all powerful he can know lust and envy without having the feelings of envy and greed. Thus premise (4) is false.

Answer:

As I have already mentioned I am skeptical that philosophers have adequately characterized the ordinary notion of God and thus I am not sure that omnipotence is a property that most people predicate of God. But, in any case, as I understand the expression "He has known lust" it would be logically impossible for God to have known lust and not have had the feeling of lust. Presumably, even on the academic notion of God, God cannot do what is logically impossible.


Divine Intelligence Impossible


(c) NOMOLOGICAL RELATEDNESS

The third feature of Hume's definition, the nomological condition ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect"), is also common to many definitions of causality. Hume's definition belongs to the line of reductive definitions that define causes in terms of laws of nature and a set of non-causal relations (such as temporal priority and spatio-temporal contiguity) between two particulars c and e.[2] According to these definitions, c is a cause of e only if there is a law of nature L that enables a statement that e occurs to be deduced from the premises that c occurs and that the law L obtains. For example, Carl Hempel writes[3]: "a 'cause' must be allowed to be a more or less complex set of circumstances or events, which might be described by a set of statements C1, C2, . . . Ck. ....Thus the causal explanation implicitly claims that there are general laws- -let us say, L1, L2, . . . Lk--in virtue of which the occurrence of the causal antecedents mentioned in C1, C2, . . . Ck is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of the explanadum event." A probabilistic law L may be permitted as well, in which case "to be deduced from" would be replaced by "to be inductively supported by".

However, the nomological condition for being a cause is logically inconsistent with a divine cause of the big bang, since God by definition is a supernatural being and his or her actions are not governed by laws of nature. Furthermore, the fact that God's willing is omnipotent makes "the big bang occurs" deducible from "God wills that the big bang occur" alone, without the need of any supplementary nomological premise, thus vitiating the condition that a nomological premise is a logically necessary condition for the derivation of the conclusion that the effect exists from premises one of which is that the causal event occurs.


These are examples of arguments against the Christian "God". This does not concern any god not matching the Christian description (as imprecise as it is).

(cont)




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Only pertains to the Christian God? Why so selective?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
(cont'd)

Arguments against evolution:

Arguments Against Evolution


The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!


Major Misconceptions about Evolution


The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.


As you can see, there are very, very valid points on both ends of the scale.

Now that we see neither side is entirely right (and you can't argue this, since scientific evidence/logical rhetoric has been provided for both cases) let's focus on finding out what is right.

Christians, stop being afraid of dying. What's the point in fearing the inevitable? Also, take responsibility for your flaws. No supernatural being is responsible for your mistakes. You are. Learn to live with it.

Atheists, broaden your horizons. Stop looking to your beloved scientists for all of your answers. Believe it or not, they don't know even half of everything. There will be questions they cannot answer, and just because they can't test it, doesn't make it nonexistent. It simply is worth looking further into.

We are all convinced we are right. We all need something to believe in. We all want to have something to save us when everything crashes down, and we all want something to tell us what's going on when things get scary. But we have to learn that spirit and science, metaphysical and physical, are two sides of the same exact coin.

If we are two continually fight against the two halves, the Divine Duality, how will we ever learn to accept each other? How will we learn to accept ourselves?

The first step is love. And remember, neither of you is completely wrong. Don't be afraid to admit you're wrong. How else will you ever learn?


Namaste

edit on CMondaypm434359f59America/Chicago02 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Only pertains to the Christian God? Why so selective?


Because these arguments are against the most influential and dominating religion in my country.

Also, this is one of the major religions, and all of the major religions originated with the same story this one tells.
edit on CMondaypm070701f01America/Chicago02 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Because men like to attack the one God who really does exist.

Why discount Vishnu or Thor or Zeus when noone believes in them?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Because men like to attack the one God who really does exist.

Why discount Vishnu or Thor or Zeus when noone believes in them?


Provide proof your god exists. I know mine exists...but what about yours? Your god, as the Christians define Him. Prove that He exists.

I have provided all of the evidence, which is summarized as this:

- The Christian God does not exist

- There was an intelligence behind the creation of our world, and the life on it

And the logical conclusion:

-Earth and life on earth was designed, but not by the Judaic god.


If I am wrong, please provide a full and complete logical argument stating and supporting your case. Then, we'll be willing to listen.
edit on CMondaypm434343f43America/Chicago02 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


How about you provide your Gods statistics?

How many people worship your God? How many Bibles have been written about your God?

If you say 1 and 0, then I have 0 necessity to provide "logical" proof of why my God (that 2+ billion people currently worship) is real, and why your "god" (who I take it,you alone worship) is not.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Starchild23
 


How about you provide your Gods statistics?

How many people worship your God? How many Bibles have been written about your God?

If you say 1 and 0, then I have 0 necessity to provide "logical" proof of why my God (that 2+ billion people currently worship) is real, and why your "god" (who I take it,you alone worship) is not.


No one "worships" Source (for lack of a better title). Why? Because Source does not require worship. A certain degree of respect and veneration, yes...because veneration for all forms of life is a good thing.

No Bibles. And that's pretty swell, since the Bible contradicts itself at every turn. See the arguments provided above for details.

Your people worship because they have a need for hope. They discredit reality in favor of having something to look forward to. You have thus far provided no reason to have faith other than for hope. I need more than this. I need more than just hope. Groundless hope is a diamond hanging by a hair above a pool of lava.

I worship no one. I do not believe in worship. Worship is debasing and demeaning, and anything demanding worship does not deserve it. When is the last time you saw a hero asking to be worshiped? Of their own genuine desire, asking to be hailed as a lord, or as a king?

Never.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Iason321
 


How about you provide your Gods statistics?

How many people worship your God? How many Bibles have been written about your God?

If you say 1 and 0, then I have 0 necessity to provide "logical" proof of why my God (that 2+ billion people currently worship) is real, and why your "god" (who I take it,you alone worship) is not.

1. Your assertions are based on a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum -- appeal to the majority -- in which you're concluding your proposition is true based on popularity. Given your statistic that 2B people worship "your" God -- more on that in item 2 -- that leaves 5B people that say you're wrong.

2. You really can't pretend that worship of the Christian God is some kind of monolithic culture. There are literally thousands of sects of Christianity and, in the absence of atheists or Muslims or whatever other group they feel like sorta kinda uniting against on a given day, they're more than happy to take shots at each other over the fine points of their particular brand of Christianity. Which, of course, must be the "right" one.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


You're wrong again, assuming Christians want to wage some kind of holy war.

That is the LAST thing any Christian I know wants to do.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Because men like to attack the one God who really does exist.

Why discount Vishnu or Thor or Zeus when noone believes in them?


Pretty much my sentiments. Starchild23 doesnt attack the gods no one believes in, just the dominant one that is the thorn in his side.

Those christian doctrines are smiting him day and night and eating him alive...the Locusts are doing what they were meant to. Not just him but the secular folk too.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Want science to have a say in this? Fine. Then explain to me how men who lived 2000-2500 years ago knew that Comet Elenin would fulfill Revelation 12 on 9-28-2011. How did men who had no knowledge of science or math, but were just jewish priests or wildmen dressed in bearfurs in the wilds know that Virgo the "woman clothed with the sun" was going to happen in the day time, when the stars are not visible and the sun would shine through the constellation virgo?

Ever hear of the star gospel? No? How was it Daniel who lived 2500+ years ago, know that Jesus was going to be born 500 years before the fact, and had the 3 magi deliver his treasure to the Messiah? The NASA program "Starry Night" can go back 5000 years and show you what the stars were doing.

Revelation 12:1-6

1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Here's what the book of Genesis says stars were made for:

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years

Here's what astronomy has to say about it:





The real star of Bethlehem:



So tell me "starchild", why do you not listen to the objects you take your avatar name from? The stars do not lie. Tell me how these men know this was going to happen when they didn't know arithmetic? How did John the Revelator know this was going to happen when he couldn't see it, but he prophecied?

So the Torah, that was written 3500 years ago, and over a thousand years before Archimedes the Father of Mathematics (287-212 B.C.) was born. So how'd Apostle John know this was going to happen? Can't answer that one can you? Deflect this one.
edit on 2-4-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 



since God by definition is a supernatural being and his or her actions are not governed by laws of nature


Ok, hang on...
who defined God as "supernatural"?

I don't see God as supernatural, but rather as the originator of all reality, including the natural world and the human perception of it.

Compared to the age of the universe, a human lifetime of a few decades is NOTHING. We, as a species, are still infants here... incapable of fully understanding the world around us.... no matter how "advanced" we are.

To put it simply, think of humans as micro-organisms.... our planet as a petri dish.... being observed by a higher powers who put us here.

edit on 3-4-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by iterationzero
 


You're wrong again, assuming Christians want to wage some kind of holy war.

That is the LAST thing any Christian I know wants to do.


Hold it. Are you saying Christians, by spread the "word of God", aren't waging war on the supposed "Satan"?

Blatant, continual slander (to me, at least) is an act of war. Pitting the populace against an entity, in my opinion, is also an act of war. Garnering followers under one name, in opposition to another being's principles, is also an act of war.

All of these actions, committed day after day among the most zealous of Christian and Catholics, and perpetrated every Sunday in every Sunday school, not to mention every time mass congregates, are acts of war.

And yet they are not waging war? Ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Starchild23
 



since God by definition is a supernatural being and his or her actions are not governed by laws of nature


Ok, hang on...
who defined God as "supernatural"?

I don't see God as supernatural, but rather as the originator of all reality, including the natural world and the human perception of it.

Compared to the age of the universe, a human lifetime of a few decades is NOTHING. We, as a species, are still infants here... incapable of fully understanding the world around us.... no matter how "advanced" we are.

To put it simply, think of humans as micro-organisms.... our planet as a petri dish.... being observed by a higher powers who put us here.

edit on 3-4-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


To be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent are not, to my understanding, natural qualities.

Since we are "natural" and we do not possess these abilities, that would make God "supernatural", would it not?

Ah, yes. Exactly. So who are we to define God at all? If you cannot define God, who are you to tell me my definition is in any way incorrect? Perhaps it is incomplete...but by our standards, every part of my description actually does apply.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


It's no wonder you'd be upset at us Christians waging war against the Deceiver, considering you're a part of his army and you don't even have the smarts to realize it.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


God is supernatural, and we are natural.

God gave us the Bible so man could begin to understand Him.

He knew noone could comprehend Him, therefore he gave His prophets attributes and demands of His to write down for mankind.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 




To be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent are not, to my understanding, natural qualities.

Since we are "natural" and we do not possess these abilities, that would make God "supernatural", would it not?


If God comes across as "supernatural" its because He did not endow us with omnipotence and omnipresence. We tend to assume what we don't understand as "supernatural" don't we?



If you cannot define God, who are you to tell me my definition is in any way incorrect?

You defined God as "supernatural", which means you have limited God to YOUR personal definition of "supernatural". If I cannot "define" God its because I can't.

God is beyond human understanding...or what has been framed as "religions".
God, as Creator of the human intellect is beyond what the human mind can conceive or imagine regarding His nature. No human, even with his religious books can begin to comprehend the real nature of God.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Starchild23
 




To be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent are not, to my understanding, natural qualities.

Since we are "natural" and we do not possess these abilities, that would make God "supernatural", would it not?


If God comes across as "supernatural" its because He did not endow us with omnipotence and omnipresence. We tend to assume what we don't understand as "supernatural" don't we?



If you cannot define God, who are you to tell me my definition is in any way incorrect?

You defined God as "supernatural", which means you have limited God to YOUR personal definition of "supernatural". If I cannot "define" God its because I can't.

God is beyond human understanding...or what has been framed as "religions".
God, as Creator of the human intellect is beyond what the human mind can conceive or imagine regarding His nature. No human, even with his religious books can begin to comprehend the real nature of God.



su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Adjective:
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Taken from an online dictionary, which says that it's pretty much a universally accepted definition...not just my definition. Does this answer your argument?

There is one word...the definition of which, from our perspective, just begins to cover it...and that word is love. Beyond that word, we cannot define it. Therefore, we know one tiny little thing about it...but that thing is one of the most important parts.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by Starchild23
 


It's no wonder you'd be upset at us Christians waging war against the Deceiver, considering you're a part of his army and you don't even have the smarts to realize it.


So now you're accusing me of working for Satan?

Am I supposed to take this seriously?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join