Religious Debate

[Gillvane]

I don't claim to know God's plan, but how can you judge it? Are you saying that because there is ugliness, pain, suffering and injustice in the world God had a crappy plan? I don't agree with you.

The dimensions of reality we are not acquainted with will reveal themselves to all of us at some point.

By the way, how would you know comfort and joy without unrest and suffering? And what is stopping humanity from actually making this world a place worthy of living in for everyone but ourselves?

If you have a better plan, though, I'm all ears. Be my guest!

First, you'll have to show me there is a plan.

So far, I don't see one.

Your question seems silly to me.

God is all powerful.

How come he wouldnt' be able to make me capable of feeling joy without sorrow?

If He can do anything, then surely he could do that too.

So you're left with God couldn't do it, which means he's not all powerful so probably not God, or he didn't want to which means He is a dick.

A better plan?

Sure. I'd start with abundant energy that didnt' pollute the planet so people wouldn't have to fight over it. Like something better than oil or uranium.

How's that for starters?

How about tectonic plates that aren't so unstable they cause earthquakes and Tsunamis.

I think that would be a better plan.

[Bob Sanders]

I am sure you must mean "the Church." The Bible is a book.

No. I meant the bible. It is an institution (structure) of religious beliefs, statements... etc, created, originated, and written ENTIRELY by humans.

ONCE AGAIN.... Please prove otherwise.

[Ian-T]

But just because you don't understand the plan right now doesn't mean there is a plan.

FIRST you have to show there is a plan. THEN you can make some of the other statements about not understanding the plan. You've haven't shown there is a plan.

Parents take care of us, provide us with shelter, food, clothes, and do their best to keep us from getting killed.

We may not like the way they go about doing those things when we are children, but even so we can see they are doing those things.

I don't see God is doing anything, so there is no way to judge if there even is a plan, much less if it's any good or not.

I have to say ....like many of your other posts you are not making any sense here at all. It's either you understand what I'm saying and chose to mock me to save face.....or you are not as witty as you pretend to be. It does not matter however because no matter how much I or anyone of faith makes a point yours always seem like just a childlike comeback. I'm not mad at you...it's just that I'm starting to come to terms with the thought that you are not worth my time.

[Gillvane]

I have to say ....like many of your other posts you are not making any sense here at all. It's either you understand what I'm saying and chose to mock me to save face.....or you are not as witty as you pretend to be. It does not matter however because no matter how much I or anyone of faith makes a point yours always seem like just a childlike comeback. I'm not mad at you...it's just that I'm starting to come to terms with the thought that you are not worth my time.

I'm pointing out that your analogy is flawed.

We're children and God is doing what's best for us. We're just dumb kids so we don't understand why God is doing it this way.

That's what you're saying right?

But let's look at what parents do.

They ground us on school night. Why? So we won't be to tired to learn at school the next day. Right?

We don't like it. We're kids and we don't think school is important. But even kids understand this logic right?

What if your parents said shave your head and put a rock in your mouth.

Would you go, well, we're just kids and our parents are doing this for our good after all.

It would be nonsensical right? Whether your a kid or not it serves no purpose.

So even if we are kids that don't want to take our medicine because it tastes bad, we can still understand that it will cure us from being sick right?

So the analogy doesn't hold.

"God's plan" has no rhyme, reason, no indication there's a coherent outcome which is why we have to go through something unpleasant.

Use oil which pollutes, and use uranium which pollutes to stay alive by growing crops and heating and cooling yourselves. Sure, I COULD have given you cleaner energy to use, but I didn't because.....

Now, your parents give you this answer. You might not agree with it, but they will say you have to go to bed BECAUSE you will be to sleepy to study tomorrow. Or you have to take this medicine BECAUSE it will cure your illness.

So God says, you have to experience this Tsunami BECAUSE....

Because what?

See where your analogy breaks down?

So God is not like a loving parent and we are not like ignorant children.

When children say "Why?" parents answer them. That's how children learn.

When you say "Ok god. Cancer. Why?" What's the answer? What are you learning from this "plan"?

Nothing, because God doesn't answer. There doesn't appear to BE any plan.

You just say "God works in mysterious ways".

Parents do not work in mysterious ways. They don't purposefully inflict pain on their children when they could stop it, and tell them it's a "plan" they don't understand.

[Gillvane]

I'm not mad at you...it's just that I'm starting to come to terms with the thought that you are not worth my time.

What you are coming to terms with is that I am not a Christian, nor likely to ever be one.

If you believe that only Christians, or those you feel you have a good chance of converting to Christianity, are worth your time then you are absolutely correct. I'm not worth your time.

The only one that could convert me to Christianity is God. I would never believe anything about a divine being second hand. Your experience is completely irrelevant to me.

Either God will manifest Himself to me, or He won't. So far, haven't gotten any indication there is a God. Certainly not by looking around at the natural world which is inherently and deeply flawed.

If there is a creator, the evidence I see is that He is either cruel, or incompetent.

That being said, I would gladly worship a a cruel incompetent God if He were going to punish me with Hell for not doing so. I just don't see anything to indicate He exists.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

No data is provided in the Bible that is coherent. It is a story with an anonymous author.

It's like saying the "data" in Lord of the Rings is quite coherent. Does it make the Lord of the Rings more credible if things are told from the perspective of Frodo and Gandalf?

I for one am not claiming the Bible is a "hoax". That would mean someone is purposefully trying to deceive someone else.

The Bible is an anonymous story. I don't know what the authors intent was. Hell, we don't even know who the author was.

Maybe they thought what they were writing was true. Maybe they heard it from someone else and thought they should write it down. I have no idea.

Maybe 2,000 years from now after the Zombie Apocalypse someone will think the Lord of the Rings is true.

That doesn't mean Tolkien was trying to pull off a hoax.

Actually, it's pretty easy to prove Shakespeare wrote his plays:

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html

Now, you post that same sort of evidence for the Bible.

I'll be happy to look it over.

First of all: I am not a scholar on Shakespeare, and I am not a scholar of the Bible either.

You seem too caught up on the authorship of the Bible.

First of all, as I already said before, the Bible is not a book with a single author. The Bible is a group of books with many authors. Some of them are well known (St. Paul), whereas some aren't.

The historical cotext of the Bible is 2000 years old (and beyond.) Maybe we should compare the Bible to Homer's Odyssey, or with Plato's Republic. Can you also provide conclusive proof of authorship for those?

Lastly, how can you compare The Lord of the Rings (which is a work of fiction) with the Bible? What part of the Bible, specifically the New Testament as it relates to the life of Jesus Christ sounds like a work of fiction to you? So the Christians were just enraged fans of the Bible, like modern day Twilight teenagers that just got too involved in the story and lost it? I don't understand what you are trying to do by comparing the Bible with The Lord of the Rings.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

Childish Remarks:

I am certain that you were once a child.
I am certain that you had parents or some sort of authority figure over you.
I am certain that you didn’t always agree with or even understood why your parents/authority figure made certain decisions that pertains to your life (spanking, chastising, sending you here or there, it doesn’t matter just fill in the blank)
I am certain whichever scenario you went through it helped to shape your life and make you who you are today.

While growing up, you might not have understood WHY many of these decisions that ended up shaping your life were made but I’m sure by now, through some maturity, you have it all figured out. The message is….just because you don’t understand the plan right now doesn’t mean the Planner doesn’t know what He is doing. By the world’s standards…God is irrational. But that is no different than how many kids view authority figures. It will all be clear in the end.

This is a perfect analogy, Ian. Even more, the divide between us and God is infinitely more vast than the divide between a child and her parents. The mere idea of a creature questioning its Creator is very interesting (it has also been explored in science fiction like in Blade Runner,) but obviously flawed.

This actually reminded me a lot of a video I found on Youtube once, where this is put into the perspective of a cat and his master:

[MalfunctioningHuman]

I don't see God is doing anything, so there is no way to judge if there even is a plan, much less if it's any good or not.

Do you really expect God to send you a report every 6 months of the status of His plan or something else? I don't understand your point.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

There is plenty of evidence to believe in Zeus as father of the Gods, and no evidence to the contrary. Jesus Christ is an invention. 2,000 BS is well documented. There was no Jesus historical character that was the son of God.

Are you just being antagonistic for the sake of it? Just because you say something over and over it doesn't make it true. Zeus is an invention. Jesus was a man who lived, was crucified, and raised from the dead 2000 years ago. He claimed to be the Son of God, performed miracles, His virtue was without equal in the history of mankind, etc. Do you really expect me not to believe in something so crucial just because it happened 2000 years ago and I haven't what we deem as acceptable scientific proof?

The fact early Christians, people well educated and with nothing material to win (but everything to lose,) people like St. Paul, who were contemporaries of Christ, gave their lives for this Truth means infinitely more to me than any modern day scientist's conjectures, or than the opinion of anybody in an Internet forum.

You cannot abstract Christianity from its historical context. What early Christians saw, what they did, how they gave their lives. Christ is neither invention nor He is a liar.

People keep asking: Why not Islam? Why not hinduism? Why not Budhism?

1. Budhism is a philosophy. I don't even think Budhists believe in a God.
2. Hinduism is a bunch of childrens' stories with animals on them.
3. I believe the historical accounts of Islam as much as I believe the historical accounts of Christianity. It's just that when I examine those accounts, I don't see anything I can believe in. Compare the accounts of Christ's life with the accounts of the life of the prophet of the muslim faith, and tell me you don't feel the same way.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

No. If you think the Bible is an historical document it's up to you to prove it.

Historical documents are not generally anonymous. The Bible is anonymous.

In 2,000 years should people believe that the Lord of the Rings is the truth because it's old?

That's basically your claim. It's old, so it must be true.

There are stories about Zeus that are older, so they must be even truer according to your logic.

If you have direct accounts from witnesses that corroborate the Bible, please post them.

Or are you saying, Well of course Frodo had the Ring. Gandalf himself says so right in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, so it must be true! Gandalf was right there!

You do realize you can't refer to what is written in the book by an anonymous author and use that as "witnesses" to what happened right?

What witnesses?

You are unrealistic, because you are concentrating on verifiable authorship to the extreme, which is actually relatively inconsequential based on all the other facts.

How can you explain Christianity if what is in the Bible is simply an invention? Please, provide me with a logical scenario that (for example) explains St. Paul's conversion and his devotion to Christ, culminating with his torture and death.

If you at least had read any of St. Paul's letters you might realize that you are not reading the musings of an intellectual weakling unable to discern between reality and fiction. We are talking about an incredibly intelligent person with a deep ability to reason and express complex thoughts. Somebody whose job had been to execute Christians prior to his conversion. Somebody who was a contemporary of Christ.

Those facts, and many others, you can't simply dismiss. The Bible is not a work of fiction, whether you like it or not.

Why don't you start a campaign to discredit Plato or Aristotle as well, anyway, since the authorship of their works must also be suspect, as it fails to satisfy the criteria you have established?

Historical uncertainty (like the authorship of the Bible) is rampant, and it even takes place more than 1 1/2 millenium later. You perhaps are not familiar with the controversy about, for example, Columbus' heritage. Where was Columbus actually born?

Uncertainty of this type is to be expected, and it increases as we move back in time. For anybody to completely discredit the Bible based on this is plain madness.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

The Bible is anonymous.

Who wrote the Gospels?

In the Bible it says the Gospels, written by ___________________.

How about you fill in that blank, and show me in the Bible where is says who wrote it.

What about St Paul's words in the Bible?

Who wrote them in the Bible?

Are you saying it's like "Lord of the Rings, written by J.R.R. Tolkien" and the Bible is like "The Bible, written by St. Paul"?

Would you kindly show me the passage in the Bible where it says "written by St. Paul".

Are you saying there is an original letter, written and signed by St. Paul, and what's in that letter is the same thing as in the Bible?

That would show the author copied down St. Paul's words accurately. It would not show St. Paul wrote those words in the Bible.

Do you have the original manuscript for all of Shakespeare's works too, with his signature on them? Not only that, were 3 witnesses present when Shakespeare signed each of his works, and was this certified by a Notary Public?

Since, according to you, the Bible has no authority because authorship of the different books can't be verified according to your standards, does that mean also all works of antiquity are also suspect?

[MalfunctioningHuman]

Who wrote that?

Did Peter write that? Does the Bible say Peter wrote it?

Did someone hear it from someone else, and then write that? Did they talk to Peter?

Did they make it up?

Who wrote it?

[Sam talking to Gandalf] "Don't turn me into anything...unnatural!"

So that proves Gandalf was a wizard and actually existed?

I don't think Tolkien was playing a hoax on anyone.

What if Tolkien believed everything happened in The Lord of the Rings.

Would that make it true?

What if the Lord of the Rings was 2,000 years old. Would that make it true?

Can I see the Catholic Church perpetrating a hoax? Well, they did have a lot to gain being one of the most powerful and richest organizations in the world.

There is of course the Concil of Nicea.

I mean, you keep acting as if Peter and Mary had to be in on some sort of hoax.

You haven't shown there ever was a Peter or Mary.

The person writing about it could have been the one confused, perpetrating a hoax, or just telling an interesting story. Who knows?

Who wrote it?

All this talk reminds me of people who genuinely think the landing in the moon in 1969 never happened, and it was all staged in some Hollywood studio.

For the n-th time: The Church is an institution, just like the United States government. Early Christians had nothing to gain and everything to lose by following Christ. This is the key fact you need to concentrate about and ponder, and that lends the amazing credibility which the Bible has regarding Jesus Christ.

[Ian-T]

What you are coming to terms with is that I am not a Christian, nor likely to ever be one.

You think so? Trust me whan I say that no one is trying to convert you (lol). Honestly though your read often seems like how a child puts both fingers in his/her ear and sticks their tounge out as if to say "I don't care what you have to say... nah nah nah nah nah." (lol) But what makes you think, after I and others told you otherwise, that I'm afraid of God? Or worship Him because I'm afraid to go to hell? Have we not explained to you that this isn't the case? Why do you continue to hammer the same moot point over and over again turning a blind ear to what we have to actually say? Regardless of what we have to say...instead of trying to understand...you keep insisting on filling in the gaps with the same old same old.

"God's plan" has no rhyme, reason, no indication there's a coherent outcome which is why we have to go through something unpleasant.

Sure...that's how it seems a lot of times. But so what? If that were not the case then where would faith come into play? And as far as going through something unpleasant what's the problem with that? What do you think happens to people when they are taken out of their confort zone? The answer is "GROWTH." If not then you are static and stuck in your ways. So I can see the value in not knowing everything.

If you believe that only Christians, or those you feel you have a good chance of converting to Christianity, are worth your time then you are absolutely correct. I'm not worth your time.

You see...this is what I mean.. You "fill in the gap" like this and put words in my mouth. I don't think anyone here read that I implied this at all.... Only you. Why do you do this? To make yourself look good? Feel better? Do I remind you of someone? Did you have a traumatic experience with a Christian? A person of faith?

The only one that could convert me to Christianity is God. I would never believe anything about a divine being second hand. Your experience is completely irrelevant to me.

Fair enough. But I'm starting to even doubt this. If it were so irrelevant to you why are we having this discussion? Why not go on with your life and dismiss anything I have to say? Personally, I think you can't because of whatever deep-seeded resentment you have towards religious people (in particular Christians which like I said earlier is based off of some sort of bad experience). From my POV the difference between you and someone like Halsu is that he likes to kick back, chill and deride us "religious minded folks" with his very articulate Wikipedia laced chastisement while you....you just seem....eagerly angry. <<No offense Halsu...lol>>

[MalfunctioningHuman]

First, you'll have to show me there is a plan.

So far, I don't see one.

Your question seems silly to me.

God is all powerful.

How come he wouldnt' be able to make me capable of feeling joy without sorrow?

If He can do anything, then surely he could do that too.

So you're left with God couldn't do it, which means he's not all powerful so probably not God, or he didn't want to which means He is a dick.

A better plan?

Sure. I'd start with abundant energy that didnt' pollute the planet so people wouldn't have to fight over it. Like something better than oil or uranium.

How's that for starters?

How about tectonic plates that aren't so unstable they cause earthquakes and Tsunamis.

I think that would be a better plan.

What is the point of a perfect world? Do you think people would be happy and learn anything in such a place?

More importantly, 99% of the suffering in the world is not caused by natural disasters (so called "acts of God") but by people's bigotry, ignorance, and hate.

And, finally, what you see in this world is just the beginning. If this is all there was, then I would agree it's a crappy plan. It just happens it isn't.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

No. I meant the bible. It is an institution (structure) of religious beliefs, statements... etc, created, originated, and written ENTIRELY by humans.

ONCE AGAIN.... Please prove otherwise.

The Bible isn't originated by human beings. Strictly, it is originated by God, and written by God also through humans.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

I'm pointing out that your analogy is flawed.

We're children and God is doing what's best for us. We're just dumb kids so we don't understand why God is doing it this way.

[...]

Nothing, because God doesn't answer. There doesn't appear to BE any plan.

You just say "God works in mysterious ways".

Parents do not work in mysterious ways. They don't purposefully inflict pain on their children when they could stop it, and tell them it's a "plan" they don't understand.

The problem is that you are not in a position to evaluate the plan. The purpose to anything in the plan is not evident to you (or to most people, most of the time) because the divide between our earthly desires and God's wisdom is infinite.

If you knew that this earthly life is but the first stage of an eternal journey, would that perhaps put earthly suffering into a different perspective for you?

[Ian-T]

This is a perfect analogy, Ian. Even more, the divide between us and God is infinitely more vast than the divide between a child and her parents. The mere idea of a creature questioning its Creator is very interesting (it has also been explored in science fiction like in Blade Runner,) but obviously flawed.

This actually reminded me a lot of a video I found on Youtube once, where this is put into the perspective of a cat and his master:

Yes MFH this was perfect. He explained it better than I could.

Gillvane,...watch the video. The point I was trying to make earlier is explained clearly.

[HueyNRolf]

I still don't think you're getting it. There is God... and then there is the DEFINITION of God.... two different things.

To show this you'd have to first prove the existence of god/s.

The Validity of God itself is anybody's guess

How so? How is someone going to guess what gods are? Not making sense.

But the DEFINITION of God is no different than the definition of a hamburger.

Incorrect again! Hamburger definitions describe natural phenomena, god definitions do not.

Definitions..... ALLLLLLLLLL definitions are merely a make-up of what the human mind believes them to be.

This doesn't mean "ALLLLLLLL" definitions are logical definitions.

The only difference with the God definition is that it involves beings BEYOND that of the Human being.

All you've said here is that god definitions do not involve humans. Which is? Undefined!

You're presupposing that gods are logically defined things before you begin and without reason. Circular, got anything else Bob?

[HueyNRolf]

Definitions by themselves are not logical or illogical.

Here's an illogical definition: Ignoramus - A fastest that has no and is why is a duck. (Illogical definition)
Here's a logical definition: Ignoramus- An ignorant or stupid person. (Logical definition)

If you are not cognitive, you can't believe or disbelieve anything.

If you're not cognitive, new born, severely retarded, coma, the concepts simply don't apply to you.

You can't be a theist or atheist.

So by your definition of atheism; if both believing and not believing do not apply to someone, you are not an atheist. Is this correct?


btw you keep ignoring this;

Gillvane Because you cannot prove a negative.

Is not a true statement.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...anegative.html

You're probably confusing it the judicial process where the defence council sets out to test the prosecution's case to the limit of reasonable doubt. 'Can't prove a negative' remains a false statement. If you have a sensible counter argument, let's hear it.

You can argue that believing in God is logical or not logical.

You cannot convincingly argue that BEFORE that argument can proceed you need a "logical" definition of God.

I'm not arguing that an argument about the logical validity of god definitions can't take place unless the definitions are logical. Your getting badly confused.

Again, red, shoe, snake, communicate something. They are not logical or illogical. How is "red" logical?

Those definition are logical because, unlike god definitions, they describe natural phenomena.

Can you not have a logical discussion of the word "is" because it's illogical?

You can have a logical discussion about 'is' because it is not an illogical proposition.

[HueyNRolf]

i don't think gods exist, but i reserve a right to be wrong.

You don't think gods exist means you believe gods don't exist if, unlike a baby, you have assessed the proposition which you obviously have done. What don't you get about this? 'Think they don't exist' means 'believe they don't exist' in your case. There's no difference whatsoever.

Now what does "i reserve a right to be wrong" mean? How does this change your belief that gods don't exist?

[HueyNRolf]

You guys don't get it. Huey can't conceptualize God, hence he can't even begin to approach the problem of whether God exists or not.

At the same time, I think he believes that whether he can conceptualize God or not has no bearing on whether a hypothetical entity (God) exists or not, based on his appeal to Aristotle earlier.

He'll probably post now and tell me that I got all wrong. LOL.

Wrong, it's correct I can't conceptualise undefined. I certainly would not claim that being incapable of conceptualising 'something' would invalidate its existence.

[Bob Sanders]

The Bible isn't originated by human beings. Strictly, it is originated by God, and written by God also through humans.

And I'm the richest guy in the world. In other words anybody can say anything but it doesn't mean it's true. Please stop merely saying it and provide proof to your words.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

And I'm the richest guy in the world. In other words anybody can say anything but it doesn't mean it's true. Please stop merely saying it and provide proof to your words.

I can't prove that, the same way I can't prove many other things. Just because you can't categorically prove something it doesn't mean you can't make an informed decision.

The data is objective, it just is. Observers of that data can reach different conclusions, as you and I are doing right now. But only one of us is naturally correct (roughly speaking.)

From your point of view I am gullible and naive to believe something for which I have no scientific proof. From my point of view, you are distrustful, jaded, and arrogant to reject something which you have no reason to doubt (based on historic events), but for which you have no scientific proof.

I also maintain that you probably accept many things as true in your everyday life without demanding scientific proof of them. That the person you believe to be your father is actually your father, that your wife is not cheating on you when you go to work, that global warming actually exists and is a direct consequence of human activity (debatable, but just an example.) These are just a few.

That you demand from God and the Bible a standard of proof that you don't demand of other things to me is just a sign of arrogance. Observe the data calmly and impartially, and try to explain it the best that you can. It's not that difficult to have faith and belief if you give it a chance and put your prejudice aside for a moment.

[MalfunctioningHuman]

Yes MFH this was perfect. He explained it better than I could.

Gillvane,...watch the video. The point I was trying to make earlier is explained clearly.

Ian, I remember watching this 2 or 3 years ago and really liking it. I've rewatched it a few times since then.

[Halsu]

The only reason you say that is because you reject God's existence, and therefore God fits the description of a myth to you. You basically lack faith (or any attempt to acquire it.)

And you do the exact same thing with Zeus.

For example, somebody seeing smoke could readily anticipate the existence of a fire. When I see the natural world, the Universe, I see the evidence of a Creator everywhere.

The question to ask is actually "what would the universe look like if there was no God?" - the answer is "according to science, pretty much exactly like our universe does."

Like Ian said before me, the Romans didn't kid around. Believing this is possible does require a considerable amount of faith to say the least. Why not just go ahead and say that Jesus was never crucified or didn't exist to begin with?

Actually, according to the bible, the Romans weren't too keen to kill Jesus - remember Pilatus washing his hands etc. The fact that he got non-standard treatment on the cross (legs not broken, taken down earlier than usual) is also suspicious. And of course, the fact that gospels say he was alive in flesh and blood after the cross is another indication to support this hypothesis. Based on these, 5% might actually be too low a probability, and definitely not too high.

I did also give 5% (i recall) for the possibility that Jesus never existed, so i have that covered too.

OK, you worded this as 33% + 33% + 34% = 100% for mundane explanations.

Yep, but added a footnote about the miracles...

It doesn't really matter, you will never get the scientific proof you so desperately need in order to believe.

I find that quite likely. What i'm pretty interested in is, how so many people accept these wild claims without such evidence. I guess i'm trying to comprehend what makes people take the leap of faith...