A rational mind wouldn't believe in God

[Norseman]

The obsession with celebrities. That is one of the substitues for God.

Do I obsess with celebrities? Can you tell me that you've seen me go to a Britney Spears concert? Have I ever asked for an autograph from anyone?

Furthermore, are you telling me that christians who do like celebrities are not actually worshipping god?

 

[Norseman]

Norseman, it's fine if you're growing tired of this debate, but I had posted a response to your argument, on page 19, which you never answered. Perhaps you overlooked it? Check it out and respond if you feel like it.

I'll check it out now, however please note that my settings currently display 40 posts per page, and only seven pages, so in the future giving me the number of the post would be very helpful, as I still have to figure out which one from all the posts on that page by you was the one I didn't answer.

 

[Norseman]

Do you realize what you just said?
If you gather enough subjective observations together, they make an objective fact. That is logic for you.

Perhaps you should define your use of "subjective".

My point being, that nothing can be proven. Nothing that we observe, no matter how much we observe it, can be proven. A scientific theory becomes a scientific law when it has been observed to be true many times, and never observed to be false.

Let's say we're looking at a thermometer. The thermometer reads 30 degrees celsius. No matter how you choose to interpret the information, the thermometer still reads 30 degrees celsius. We compare the thermometer with another thermometer. They read the same. If all thermometers read the same in the same conditions, then, in the conditions they were tested in, they will provide a system of objective analysis. This is objective information.

"Scientific laws" could be wrong. Therefore they themselves are subjective statements about objectivity.

They "could" be, but that's highly unlikely. Do you doubt the laws of aerodynamics when you get on a plane? Do you believe that you will hit the wall at the end of the runway and die? Do you believe an airplane without airfoil surfaces will still fly? Do you believe a feather will fall slower than a rock in a vacuum?

The laws "could" be false, but the chance of that being true is so little it isn't even worth considering. We didn't get to the moon with rockets that didn't move, and we didn't make those rockets without at least a little objective analysis in order to make guides for we see the universe work, otherwise called laws. If you ever find a law to be false, be sure to tell me, until then, I find no reason to not accept the observations and mathematical equations which created these laws.

So, it comes down to believing what the majority of people have observed to be true. Christianity is the largest religion in the world, therefore -- by your own reasoning -- make your own conclusions.

Christianity has yet to prove or use their belief in any practical way. I haven't seen a plane flown by faith, and I've never seen a praying man defy the laws of gravity. I have yet to see anyone actually talk to god, and find out when jesus is coming, although I've seen the contrary hundreds of times.

Furthermore, what is your belief about the origin of life on earth? If you believe in evolution, then you believe in something that is not only unprovable, but also not directly observable.

How so? Are you adding abiogenesis to evolution, or are you claiming there is no current evidence for evolution?

 

[wayfaring man]

[/QUOTE] Norseman


No indeed, it is no suprise you cannot conceive a world without your god because you are emotionally dependant on such a figure whose values you disregard the moment you feel they impede you. Much a like a father who told you not to take a cookie, and always stands watch, yet you believe you can take what you want and he will forgive you simply because you think he is actually there. That's hardly an excuse, if you know your god is always looking over your shoulder and you still do what you know is wrong, that is the most insulting action imaginable. As much regard as you give to your god, in practice you never show an ounce of such reverance.

[/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a pompous , presumptous , rant ; you audaciously pretend to be an expert in something which you openly acknowledge , that you believe not in - not in the least : and consequently can only project your own corrupt , insincere religious experiences ; based upon your own inane , unsatisfatory , interpretations ... therefore you're really describing your own hypocrisy / apostasy : for you neither know the details of my experiences , nor are familiar with the degrees of reverence with which my spirit communes with God's Spirit .
But have written as though you've walked " many miles " in my shoes .
And yet , you claim to " Know " what is , and is not , rational ?!!
Which would be ironically funny - if it weren't so pathetically sad .

" The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee ... " <---> Obadiah 3

" Before destruction the heart of man is haughty ... " <---> Proverbs 18:12

" Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God , that he may exalt you in due time ... For God resists the proud , and gives grace to the humble . " <---> 1st Peter 5:6+5

Prayerfully , wm

P.S. Note also : --- "... The kingdom of God is not in word , but in power . " <---> 1st Corinthians 4:20

 

[Norseman]

What a pompous , presumptous , rant ; you audaciously pretend to be an expert in something which you openly acknowledge , that you believe not in - not in the least : and consequently can only project your own corrupt , insincere religious experiences ; based upon your own inane , unsatisfatory , interpretations ...

Have I ever had or claimed to have religious experiences? How is it possible then that I could be insincere about them? When have I made an unsatisfactory interpretation and of what? You might think to point it out, rather than claim it exists and be left with no examples. Furthermore, I would suggest.. no I wouldn't.. these forums are moderated in your favor, so undoubtedly you will not be warned, however had I said the same of you at the time, I surely would have been.

therefore you're really describing your own hypocrisy / apostasy : for you neither know the details of my experiences , nor are familiar with the degrees of reverence with which my spirit communes with God's Spirit .

And yet you haven't answered my question. Curious that you go to such great lengths to avoid answering what I ask of you. Well, you need not answer me, but if your god is real, he is to who you will be answering, you'd best not shoot a messenger, if indeed some purpose has been forced upon me.

But have written as though you've walked " many miles " in my shoes .
And yet , you claim to " Know " what is , and is not , rational ?!!
Which would be ironically funny - if it weren't so pathetically sad .

Indeed. Didn't you know I was prophet of the IPU? You've never seen any of my texts?

Anyway, I see you like being told who you are about as much as I do, perhaps you should avoid it in the future.

 

[wayfaring man]

Have I ever had or claimed to have religious experiences? How is it possible then that I could be insincere about them? When have I made an unsatisfactory interpretation and of what?

I'm athest because:

0. My parents had conflicting theologies, so unlike most christians, I didn't just take god for granted.
1. I saw no evidence to support god, so there is no reason why he should be any more true than any other god(s).
2. The theologies of different gods (and sometimes even the same god) contradict, each saying the other is false, so only 1 god or pantheon of gods can be true.
3. Without any way of choosing between gods, the only reasonable answer at such a juncture is to say "I don't know".
4. However, when talking about the IPU I find that no one in their right mind would believe in such a being, just as they wouldn't believe in leperchauns. Why change the rules just because a group of people actually believe in a god?
5. If we can positively assert that leperchauns and fairies don't exist, we can say the same of god.

I started out with little to no belief (#0), moved to agnosticism(1-3), then to weak atheism (4), and now I am strong atheist (5).

My conclusion is that the bible is again contradictory.

That's exactly what I thought when I was reading the bible

[ Previous statements by Norseman ]

 

[Norseman]

Uh huh, and what's your point?

 

[cleft_for_me]

Ah, but here you see you are wrong, unless I am mistaken as to what you refer to.

If God is one of God's own creations, God must first exist before he can cause himself to exsit. If God is the only thing which can cause God to exist, then nothing could have caused God, therefore God could not exist.

If however something else caused God, then it would in fact be God, because it has created the creator which created the universe.

Or, if you subscribe to the philosophy of God as a programmer, being extradimensional and thus able to exist in His own timeline before our timeline even existed, then alll you have done is shifted the God into a different timescale, which means you still haven't answered the question of the origin of God, and hence you fall into one of these three scenarios, again. If it is this one, then again, God can not create himself before he existed.

But you see it does. Am I required to prove leperchans don't exist to be justified in not believing in them? Am I required to prove Loki doesn't exist to be justified in not believing in him? Why is the Christian god different? Because you (not you personally) believe in him?

As the old saying goes, "When you understand why you discredit all the other gods you will understand why I discredit yours."

Hey.

Evidence for God. I'm going to quote a couple sections from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. There are four arguments that I'd like to cover, but I'll cover one to keep the post at reasonable length.

This is the Cosmological Argument: "There is a universe rather than none at all, which must have been caused by something beyond itself. The law of causality [principle of] says that every finite thing is caused by something other than itself."

(Two forms of this argument exist: "that the cosmos or universe needed a cause at its beginning, ...[or] that it needs a cause to continue existing." I'm covering the former.)

"The argument that the universe had a beginning caused by something beyond the universe can be stated this way:
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore the universe was caused by something else (a Creator).

Scientific Evidence: In short, this is backed by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. Since the universe is tending toward disorder, it cannot be eternal. "Otherwise, it would have run out of usable energy long ago. Things left to themselves, without outside intelligent intervention, tend toward disorder. Since the universe has not reached a state of total disorder, this process has not been going on forever."

This is also backed by the big bang cosmology. (Check out the Dopplar effect, the "radiation echo" from space..)

Philosophical Evidence: "Time cannot go back into the past forever, for it is impossible to pass through an actual infinte number of moments.. "

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinte number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

I don't want to get in trouble for plagarising so I'm gonna stop there. The other two I'm reading over are the teleological argument, the moral argument and the ontological argument (one of the more convincing ones for the mind).

Don't take my or Dr. Norman Geisler's (author) words for any of this. If you are at all serious about your stance, satisfy it. Back it by the most reasonable arguments to the intellectual mind. Satisfy all sides of your debate fairly, to bring peace to your mind. (Yah, it's a dare.) ...I'm curious as to what you'll find.


Good luck in your search for the Truth.

 

[MQTA]

(1) "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible"
This is the most common creationist claim about science and evolution. The people who make this claim, often do not know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are about, much less how to apply them. Just to be fair, I thought I'd get a verbatum description of these laws from a commonly available source, an encyclopedia. Here it is:



Thermodynamics as taken from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved

thermodynamics, branch of science concerned with the nature of HEAT and its conversion into other forms of ENERGY. Heat is a form of energy associated with the positions and motion of the molecules of a body. The total energy that a body contains as a result of the positions and the motions of its molecules is called its internal energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that in any process the change in a system's internal energy is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment minus the WORK done on the environment. This law is a general form of the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the ENTROPY cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink.

The third law of thermodynamics states that all bodies at absolute zero would have the same entropy; this state is defined as having zero entropy.

Now, given this description, let me say that these laws can be loosely applied to nature, specifically to the life of any organism, or to an entire ecosystem. As it relates to a biological organism, we can substitute "heat" or "Energy" with "Food", "Air", and "water". Essentially, a creature that does not get enough energy in the forms of food, water, and oxygen, will decay and die, due to entropy. As it relates to a whole ecosystem, heat can be left unsubstituted, as heat from the Sun is the cheif driving force behind all life on earth. We know that the environment rarely decays and dies -- it merely changes it's state.

Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot. Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball?


http://www.weirdcrap.com/scholarly/debunk.html

 

[jingwei]

Do I obsess with celebrities? Can you tell me that you've seen me go to a Britney Spears concert? Have I ever asked for an autograph from anyone?

Furthermore, are you telling me that christians who do like celebrities are not actually worshipping god?

Yes.
I said celebrities are ONE of the substitues.

 

[- DRA -]

You asked if I could prove it was "the most likely path" not if I could prove that's exactly how it happened. As I said before, I don't know, for all I know the organs could have just shown up, but that becomes less and less likely, so while the question you asked me was answered, the answer you were looking for (apparently) has been posted already, by me, and now again, by me.

Thank you. My question has been answered satisfactorily. You have shown us all that in your mind the "most likely path" = what you don't know + what could have just shown up + what becomes less and less likely. Thank you, again.

As above.


As above.


I don't. But naturally they are more likely to die if they are "retarded". How do you expect a cripple to fare in the wild?

The issue is not whether they die prematurely, it is how they were immediately removed from the reproduction process so their less desirable traits wouldn't hinder the future progress of the species. Obviously, you can't explain it so you change the subject.

Do you know anything about evolution? Did you ever go to highschool biology?

Ignorant would apply better. If you don't even know what you're arguing against how do you know you're right?

Red herrings are used by those that can't defend their reasoning with logic that is logical. Did you know that red herrings can be found in the Scriptures? For instance, the Pharisees tried one against Jesus in Matthew 12:22-37. That discussion did not go well for the Pharisees. It ended up with Jesus discussing blasphemy. Why am I discussing the Scriptures with you? Oh, silly me. But, come to think of it, Jesus also said something about the serious side of this very thing in Matthew 7:6.

As I said, I don't know. I can prove it is most likely, but the debate about creation/evolution has been going on long enough, that like god, it appears it will never end. I don't intend to start an unending process.

Uh huh. I previously commented on your "most likely path" rationale.

However, I suggest you learn a little about basic evolution, and stop coming up with strawmen if you want to create more effective arguements.

Strawmen, huh? Then why don't you huff and puff and blow them down?

Oh, one final thought. You really should consider where the "most likely path" leads you - - "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

Adios.

 

[jingwei]

If the thoery of evolution is true then the human race will no longer evolve, because the weak and genetically unbeneficial are not wiped out by natural competition.

 

[cleft_for_me]

For MQTA:


Yes you are correct, which is my (and Geisler's) point. I am reading the definition of ENTROPY in the same source you mentioned. I want to post it but my computer isn't letting me. In short, the point is the total amount of energy in an isolated system such as the universe (the earth is not isolated since it can interact with other systems within the universe), remains constant (conservation law), and the amount of entropy (2nd law) increases; so while the amount of energy in the universe remains the same, the amount of usable energy is decreasing.

 

[theseed]

A rational mind wouldn't believe in a God which is both omnimax and unconstrained. Why? Well, I inadvertently produced this substantiation whilst endeavoring on all-together different proposition, and my efforts resulted in this:

Your intial premise is false in regards to the Christian God, ie you whole post does not apply.

God is constrained, and has limits, which The Bible puts forth.


Titus 1
2 in (1) the hope of eternal life, which God, (2) who cannot lie, (3) promised (4) long ages ago,


2 Timothy 2
13
If we are faithless, (1) He remains faithful, for (2) He cannot deny Himself.


Hebrews 6
18 so that by two unchangeable things in which (1) it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of (2) the hope set before us.

 

[Philosoft]

If the thoery of evolution is true then the human race will no longer evolve, because the weak and genetically unbeneficial are not wiped out by natural competition.

This is an interesting subject of thought, for sure. It's hard to say, but I'd venture there will always be some criteria that will confer differing levels of reproductive success among individuals.

 

[AnCiEnT1]

I find this a pointless argument because there are no real "rational" minds anymore. You can sit there and throw your definitions at it all day. It makes no difference. The funny thing is that in the days of christ before christianity came about and they were still learning what it was to "follow Jesus"... well lets say even before that the true beleivers of god based their faith on a basis of proof.. To the neanderthalls and primitive minds the sun rising was their proof, in the time of moses his words, works of miracles of god, and the stone tablets he carried down from the mountain was their proof, in the time of jesus his miracles performed before watching eyes was their proof and now in christianity developed some years after christs departure from us the word "faith" has new meaning. Christianity is a beleif structure that states it does not need tangible evidence as proof of gods existence but is based from the words of those who supposedly had tangible evidence. It doesn't take an irrational mind nor a rational mind to beleive in god or to not beleive in god. It takes no real "tangible" evidence either. (here comes some of my information I warned you all I would be posting in another post.. please keep an open mind to read on) I want you who do not have 100% faith to read and think for just a moment... You posess an imortal soul created by god. Your imortal soul is made up of the power of god.... This makes you a Living extension of god... Now before you take that the wrong way understand that I do not say this "makes you god" or anythign stupid like that for we all only poses a portion of god inside of us... The power of god which brings with it life and a connection to one another. Ok having said that also let me state this does in no way make you all knowing or so to speak as god is for his mind is not of ours and ours is not of his as he states. It does give you a mutual advantage tho. Close your eyes for a moment and detatch yourself from... well.. yourself. Sounds difficult but bare with me. Close your eyes and extend you soul out beyond your body. Basically relax your self into a complete state of serinity. Use not your physical senses but your spiritual senses to feel. You can feel the world pulsing around you. The flow of energy and the movement of god for god is everywhere and is everything. The grass, the air, the trees, the sky, and everything in creation. If you accomplished what I just stated to do and felt it as it should be feel lucky for you are close to god and are more in tune than most. As it may happen to most of you when you stop this you don't feel it quite as strong anymore but it's still there.... The way you felt when you had your eyes closed is how I felt from a very young age up. I will explain a little more later about that sometime. But lets just say it was one of the great powers which instructed me to be as I am and I live my life in every moment extended beyond myself... feeling the presence of heaven and yes even hell and everyone who exists alive and dead. Let me warn you tho it is not for the weak of heart because you will feel others pain and suffering as well... Then once you have done all this I want you to tell me that you of rational mind do not beleive in some power creater than yourself

 

[cleft_for_me]

I find this a pointless argument because there are no real "rational" minds anymore...Christianity is a beleif structure that states it does not need tangible evidence as proof of gods existence but is based from the words of those who supposedly had tangible evidence.

Hey.

Interesting post. What are your views on absolute truth? Can we know the truth?

 

[cleft_for_me]

Christianity is a beleif structure that states it does not need tangible evidence as proof of gods existence but is based from the words of those who supposedly had tangible evidence...

The Christian faith is too often misrepresented as a "crutch" for the weak-minded, a life-boat for the naiive. More than enough are labled that; sadly, their attitudes have called for it. As a Christian, I apologize.

The real faith in a Christian is not blind. God did not ask us to sieze an irrational trust in Him, because the Bible and it's ample historical evidence reveals it. (Check out the "Bible Answer Man's" web page). That is why He commanded us to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that lies within you." (1 Peter 3:15).

 

[Norseman]

Evidence for God. I'm going to quote a couple sections from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. There are four arguments that I'd like to cover, but I'll cover one to keep the post at reasonable length.

You should be aware that all formal arguments for the existence of god have already been debunked, and hence I could go and find 20-30 sources that all provide disproofs for your arguments. However, I'd like to be sporting, so rather than doing precisely what you're doing, I'll do it the old fashioned way.

This is the Cosmological Argument: "There is a universe rather than none at all, which must have been caused by something beyond itself. The law of causality [principle of] says that every finite thing is caused by something other than itself."

Notice it says "every finite thing" as opposed to "everything". The law of causality does not apply to an infinite universe, if it is indeed infinite. This alone is enough for me to disregard the rest of your argument, but I've seen this particular argument at least 50 times, so this is more an excerise of memory than actual thinking. You should note that untried and uninque arguments do require more thinking on the part of your opposition, it also helps to break the stalemate, which unless someone comes up with an irrefutable proof, will remain indefinitely.

"The argument that the universe had a beginning caused by something beyond the universe can be stated this way:

1. The universe had a beginning.

Not given. More proof will be required to show the universe had a beginning, and as said above, the law of causality doesn't provide this.

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.

Somehow you don't apply this to god...

3. Therefore the universe was caused by something else (a Creator).

No, even if you reached this conclusion with satisfactory proof, you'd still need to identify the creator by further proof, and it is possible that the creator isn't even intelligent, so without good proof, you can't say your god is the cause, any more than I could say Iggy the Magic Elf was.

Scientific Evidence: In short, this is backed by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. Since the universe is tending toward disorder, it cannot be eternal. "Otherwise, it would have run out of usable energy long ago. Things left to themselves, without outside intelligent intervention, tend toward disorder. Since the universe has not reached a state of total disorder, this process has not been going on forever."

Haven't you ever seen Jet Black's signature?

This is also backed by the big bang cosmology. (Check out the Dopplar effect, the "radiation echo" from space..)

The Big Bang does evidence a massively powerful explosion, however, it doesn't prove that the universe didn't exist before the big bang (albeit with far less mass, or extremely far from our present location), and it doesn't prove there haven't been previous big bangs/big crunches.

Philosophical Evidence: "Time cannot go back into the past forever, for it is impossible to pass through an actual infinte number of moments.. "

Not for an infinity. The time before us would be an infinity if we are in an infinite universe.

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.

Can be, by infinity.

2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never have come.

This is like saying that if god is eternal he doesn't exist. That doesn't work out with your theology, nor the universe.

3. But today has come.

Indeed.

4. Therefore, an infinte number of moments have not elapsed before today (i.e., the universe had a beginning).

The premises don’t follow to this.

5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.

Rather, whatever is caused has a cause.

6. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

And as in the first argument, you still haven’t identified the cause, even if it exists.

I don't want to get in trouble for plagarising so I'm gonna stop there. The other two I'm reading over are the teleological argument, the moral argument and the ontological argument (one of the more convincing ones for the mind).

As I said above, I think, all formal proofs of god have been debunked, otherwise you wouldn’t see very many atheists.

Don't take my or Dr. Norman Geisler's (author) words for any of this. If you are at all serious about your stance, satisfy it. Back it by the most reasonable arguments to the intellectual mind. Satisfy all sides of your debate fairly, to bring peace to your mind. (Yah, it's a dare.) ...I'm curious as to what you'll find.

If you try a google search on 200 proofs god I believe you’ll find a website or two which is a list of proofs, including yours, and others, that have already been debunked. Nearly every argument for god falls into one of the arguments on that list, which is why unique arguments and methods are encouraged if you really want to prove god.

 

[Norseman]

Yes.

You'er telling me that I've asked for an autograph, and I obsess about celebrities? Well I hope you can tell me who I obsess over, and when/where I asked for this autograph, because I certaintly don't know about this event.

I said celebrities are ONE of the substitues.

One of them? Well name another then.