I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[TrueHeart]

Lol did you read my post? Did you have any 'concept of the concept' I was making? And do you know what a Strawman Fallacy is? Please demonstrate how I created a distorted view of the Christian concept of God, that being an All-knowing, All-powerfull Supernatural being that created our Universe, and by Definition has to be Outside of Time itself.

Also, I'm not going to read a book about Theology, I have no reason to respect it.

I apologize. I thought you were serious. But thanks for responding so quickly: I won't waste my time anymore.

 

[reason]

'God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.' - Hebrews 16:8

God is not omnipotent, according to Hebrews.

 

[Oberon]

I reject religion because of The Big Picture. The Big Picture, to me, is starting chronologically at the beginning of the Universe and working your way to this point in time, scientifically of course. (If there are any errors in the science please forgive me lol)

You're getting your science mixed up with your philosophy. Can the Material abolish the Absolute?

Ambrose Bierce noted the modern tendency to discard the mythologies of the past in favor of mythologies newly minted. None of us is as smart as we think we are.

Especially me.

 

[Totenkindly]

'God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.' - Hebrews 16:8

God is not omnipotent, according to Hebrews.

To clarify: Because God can't lie, he's not omnipotent?

Aren't we mixing "raw capability" with "intrinsic character" here? Just curious.

Since I am strong athesit I will join the show.

I think that Didums is doing good job here.

From what I know many people say that this entire god thing is actally about love.

That is totally wrong aproach because if the god is so interested in love as those people say he is , he would have made many things in a much different way.

Probaby the most obvious part in this argument is that, nuclear weapons should not be possible if their god created this reality.

I am not finished but I will be back.

Good, since I'd like to hear what you think a world of love would feasibly look like.

 

[reason]

Aren't we mixing "raw capability" with "intrinsic character" here? Just curious.

I don't think so. It says 'impossible' i.e. not a possibility. Furthermore, I think there are other examples in The Bible where God's authority is given limitations, though I couldn't find them when writing that post. Of course, the people who wrote or said this in The Bible might be wrong or their comments may be interpreted differently. In any case, it hardly seems to be a foregone conclusion that God is omnipotent, especially the Christian God.

On that note: I don't see how Didums could plausibly exist.

Edit: ... and Dawkins is a teapot.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't think so. It says 'impossible' i.e. not a possibility. Furthermore, I think there are other examples in The Bible where God's authority is given limitations, though I couldn't find them when writing that post. Of course, the people who wrote or said this in The Bible might be wrong or their comments may be interpreted differently. In any case, it hardly seems to be a foregone conclusion that God is omnipotent, especially the Christian God.

All right.

I guess I sort of separate them as I have said -- into matters of intent vs matters of conviction. For example, I might be potent enough to take someone's bicycle and throw it off the roof of a building... but it would be against my character to do so.

(Especially if they were not on it... I mean, I wouldn't want to lug that damned thing up there without being able to toss them off the roof too if I was going to all the trouble!)

So you might say, as it was said here, that it's "impossible" for me to do something like that... but it doesn't mean I couldn't, from a pure potency perspective.

So that is how I personally view verses like this as well. Not a matter of omnipotence (which describes potency and is a measure of "raw capability") but a matter of character, which is something else to me, a matter of quality and not quantity.

In the big scheme, too, I am at a point in my beliefs where I'm not sure if it is constructive to try to weave a consistent large-scale theology from a collection of books covering such a large period of time, cultures, authors, and purposes. We might be searching for consistency (such as "Is God omnipotent or not?") among text that is inherently inconsistent. But I know the inerrantists (not you, but them) as a group prefer to approach it as if such a framework can be distilled.

On that note: I don't see how Didums could plausibly exist.

Who?

Edit: ... and Dawkins is a teapot.

Short and stout?

 

[sassafrassquatch]

You're getting your science mixed up with your philosophy. Can the Material abolish the Absolute?

Ambrose Bierce noted the modern tendency to discard the mythologies of the past in favor of mythologies newly minted. None of us is as smart as we think we are.

Especially me.

Please tell me you're not calling science a myth.

 

[SillySapienne]

Science, via the scientific method, understands, accepts and considers human fallibility!!!

It seeks to understand the nature of the universe, to classify its elements and to understand the laws behind its mechanisms and processes, science seeks to know what is and why it is, period.

All accepted scientific laws and theories are subject to change should new information come to light.

Science/scientists seek to discover, understand, postulate and conjecture information regarding nature based on the rigid scientific method supported by significant amounts of EVIDENCE.

I subscribe to a wonderful periodical, Science News, and ever week I am FASCINATED by the numerous discoveries made in various scientific domains/fields.

Science is a dynamically growing process/means of discovery.

The bible and most sects of Christianity, however, seem/are pretty stagnant and archaic, in my opinion.

And I would like to share one of my favorite book dedications I've ever read, from the text, Understanding Evolution, the authors wrote,

"To those readers who are seeking promising answers rather than final ones"

 

[murkrow]

I'd like to know, accepting for an instant the absolutely ridiculosity of christian God, why are people so willing to follow him?

 

[gokartride]

absolutely ridiculosity of christian God

Sounds like you are talking about the cartoon version of the christian God. The God Jesus himself spoke about was not necessarily rediculous, although many christians can sure make it seem that way.

why are people so willing to follow him?

There are several versions (in different cultures, christian and not) of ancient literature speaking of "the two ways." One way (the good way) leads to well-being and wholeness (for us and others)...and the other (the bad way) is less functional and leads to harm of ourselves and others. The dynamics of these "two ways" has been observed playing out over and over since ancient times...and there is real wisdom here. The teachings of Jesus was strongly aligned with "the good way." The good way creates, and enables persons to live in the dignity and inner freedom that is our right. I think/hope people follow the christian God basically because of Jesus' teachings. That so few really do this very well is sad on many levels.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

The good way creates, and enables persons to live in the dignity and inner freedom that is our right. I think/hope people follow the christian God basically because of Jesus' teachings. That so few really do this very well is sad on many levels.

What exactly does this "good way" entail?

 

[Didums]

the big bang theory has changed many times over the years.

Yes, the Big Bang has been Improved upon when new evidence and information was discovered.

from an objective viewpoint, its just as unbelievable that I descended from an earthworm, as it is an all mighty being created me.

Are you confusing Objectivity with Subjectivity? Also, to say that we desceneded from an earthworm is a typical thing that comes from the mouth of a Creationist, you don't want me thinking that you are a creationist..

There is more evidence of humans being descended from aliens who arrived from outer space, than the big bang theory.

What?! First of all you are connecting two unrelated ideas. For that to be a just comparison, you'd have to be comparing human descendence from Aliens to Abiogenesis/Evolution. Secondly, don't confuse the word "theory", which can mean "a random idea or thought that seems to make sense", with a Scientific Theory, that has been rigorously tested through the Scientific Method a countless amount of times.

If you study the history of Sumerians, Nibiru (the 10th planet nasa found 2 years ago), and Akkadians, there is far more scientific evidence we came from aliens, than an earthworm.

You mean mean wall paintings and carvings that can be subjectively viewed to show an extra planet? Have you thought to compare the Proportionate size of each planet? Or their distance and configuration? I have a friend that believes this crap and have debated him for hours, he's pretty much given up.

Yet science refuses to acknowledge this hypothesis that has greater scientific evidence. Now that to me is funny. The theory of Nibiru has farrr more scientific evidence than the big bang theory origin of humans.

Like Sass said..

btw, don't read all that nibiru, sumerians, zacharia stuff unless u want to be disoriented for a few days. if u have an important event comin up, by all means, we came from from an amoeba and electricity.

Yes, I don't want to have my mind tranquilized from rational thought.

it just trips me out the Sumerians knew that there was a 10th planet, 6000 years before NASA did.

Yes, because they had advanced telescope technology right? O wait.. nope. They didn't even have Crude telescopes, they mapped the first 5 planets by Eye.

Okay I stopped, there is no point cause Sass dealt with'ya.

 

[Didums]

I apologize. I thought you were serious. But thanks for responding so quickly: I won't waste my time anymore.

What? My OP is of a serious nature.

If you don't want to waste your time with me then good for you, however I see it as a failure to show me how I commited a Strawman Fallacy.

Edit: I understand that a few of my questions in my 'question-answer' session had a mocking tone but they did not equivocate to Strawman Fallacy

You're getting your science mixed up with your philosophy.

Well, its more like my premise is the Science and the questions/answers are philosophy.

 

[Orangey]

i dont see why anyone would waste time trying to prove or disprove the concept of a being that is, by definition, above reality as we know it

this is the real mystery.

That is because the concept of God is not "by definition, above reality as we know it." If we were talking about the possible existence of some grand unknowable being out there who is in no way tied to the Earth or to humans, then yes, it would be pointless to try and provide earthly evidence for or against its existence. However, most concepts of "God" that we are dealing with are tied in some way to the Earth and to human experience (creation stories, rules of behavior, doctrines, etc...), and because of this the concept is fundamentally a part of reality as we know it. If it weren't, we would have no impetus to prove or disprove its existence...it would be of no consequence to us whether this being existed or not.

So saying that there is no way to prove or disprove God because its existence is "above reality", when the very nature of religion is to anchor the reality of God in earthly experience, is a contradiction...and when used by theists to dismiss evidence presented (or efforts to find evidence) against the likelihood of God's existence, it is an evasion.

 

[millerm277]

There are several versions (in different cultures, christian and not) of ancient literature speaking of "the two ways." One way (the good way) leads to well-being and wholeness (for us and others)...and the other (the bad way) is less functional and leads to harm of ourselves and others. The dynamics of these "two ways" has been observed playing out over and over since ancient times...and there is real wisdom here. The teachings of Jesus was strongly aligned with "the good way." The good way creates, and enables persons to live in the dignity and inner freedom that is our right.

Since I haven't seen many atheists going out and murdering and commiting crimes, I'm pretty sure this is unrelated to religon or the teachings of Jesus.

I think/hope people follow the christian God basically because of Jesus' teachings. That so few really do this very well is sad on many levels.

Why is it sad? What exactly is so terrible about them (and me) not following it?

 

[Grayscale]

That is because the concept of God is not "by definition, above reality as we know it." If we were talking about the possible existence of some grand unknowable being out there who is in no way tied to the Earth or to humans, then yes, it would be pointless to try and provide earthly evidence for or against its existence. However, most concepts of "God" that we are dealing with are tied in some way to the Earth and to human experience (creation stories, rules of behavior, doctrines, etc...), and because of this the concept is fundamentally a part of reality as we know it. If it weren't, we would have no impetus to prove or disprove its existence...it would be of no consequence to us whether this being existed or not.

So saying that there is no way to prove or disprove God because its existence is "above reality", when the very nature of religion is to anchor the reality of God in earthly experience, is a contradiction...and when used by theists to dismiss evidence presented (or efforts to find evidence) against the likelihood of God's existence, it is an evasion.

"If it weren't, we would have no impetus to prove or disprove its existence...it would be of no consequence to us whether this being existed or not."

exactly my point. Let's put aside the simple-minded notion of "God" as a some sort of hocus-pocus spiritual entity and think of a more realistic possibility... if such a force existed, being responsible for creation of our reality as we know it, would need to be external to it and thus beyond our observation.

similarly, interaction of said force with our universe wouldn't necessarily come in the form of scientifically unexplainable "miracles", as much as omnipotence-driven quantum physical determinism or the like. in other words, i think that although the classical description of God is unrealistic, I dont think we should put science on the other side of the coin because the idea of such a force becomes legitimate if you remove some of the commonly accepted parameters, and i dont think it's in our best interests to be pitted against idea that are entirely possible because people who are inclined towards more reason-devoid, sensationalist arguments have a viewpoint that is similar.

it seems as though the concept of "God" (for lack of a better word) has been formed (watered down) in such a way that we can interact and possibly prove or disprove it. i say we put aside the arguments and consider the idea, but think bigger... and realize that there is no way we will ever know for sure.

 

[Prototype]

Denial...
Subjectivity...
Objectivity...
Acceptance due to failure of faith...

Sorry, that's all I have seen in this thread so far. Not one single fibrous offering to the inexplicable existence of God... Likely due to the idea that everything we know of, has challenging stigmas embedded within their own separate realities.

Lets ignore the fact that the bible exists for a minute... It's a crutch.

In light of the thread title, lets take the concept of "God"... and call it... Curiosity, in regards to our powerfully creative minds.

The world was once thought to be flat... They were wrong!

I'm not really willing to sit here and type out all the mythological jargon related to the ancient civilizations, and I don't care to much about getting into a strategic paradigmatic battle of wits within the walls of Religion Vs. Science... Why on Earth would I want to think backwards?...

It's actually quite puzzling, to see how we managed to evolve forward by thinking backwards

GOD?... It could be a manifestation, for the Gift and Order of Determination... It is, what it isn't.

EDIT: Have an open mind, and consider my point whilst reading this thread... http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/other-psychology-topics/7045-creativity.html

 

[Mole]

The Rear Vision Mirror

in regards to our powerfully creative minds.

Creativity is purely a function of literacy.

And right now, on the internet, we are moving into the noosphere.

And the noosphere gives us presence - presence is a function of the noosphere.

But as we drive forward looking in the rear vision mirror, all we see is creativity.

 

[nomadic]

Yes, because they had advanced telescope technology right? O wait.. nope. They didn't even have Crude telescopes, they mapped the first 5 planets by Eye.

Okay I stopped, there is no point cause Sass dealt with'ya.

You see the 11 planets around the Sun? one is the moon. Another is the 10th planet that NASA discovered 2 years ago.

According to occam's razor... then this theory has more validity than the 10th version of big bang theory.

But i understand, u want to hold on to your community of mainstream science security. u don't want to be alone... interesting? isn't it? life is a circle in more ways than one.

 

[Jack Flak]

According to occam's razor... then this theory has more validity than the 10th version of big bang theory.

Lol Occam's Razor. Don't you ever use that phrase again. Ever!