Bikerman

In fact the 'pull' will travel down the cable at the speed of sound (for that cable, which will depend on its construction).

I used to believe in Newton's deterministic, clockwork universe: that if the velocity and position of every particle in the universe were known, we could determine the fate of everything. I used to believe that there exists an absolute equation that can predict the motion of everything and, ultimately, the destiny of everything. Much as I hate to admit it, it also implies that there is some truth to astrology.

No, it doesn't. Even if one did believe in a Newtonian 'clockwork' universe, that gives no support for Astrology. The clockwork universe is still entities existing and moving in relation to each other, governed by physical law. There is nothing in that which would give hope to astrologers, since any physical effects produced by the position of planets and stars is so minute that it is immediately swamped by the environment.

For example, one might consider that the moon would have a different gravitational effect, depending on position. It does indeed, but the difference would be cancelled by a flea landing on a 200lb person.

Now it is certainly true to say that Newton himself has some crackpot ideas - mainly concerning alchemy - and many scientists were shocked when they discovered just how mad some of Newton's beliefs were. Far from being the 'first scientist' as many people say, he is probably more accurately described as the 'last alchemist'.

 

However, Einstein virtually broke Newton's universe, that is, Newton's laws can only apply to objects in everyday life but for explaining extremely large phenomena like Mercury's orbit or infinitesimal particles like electrons, Einstein's relativistic theories made much more sense. Indeed, science says that our universe is rather probabilistic than deterministic. In other words, we cannot really extrapolate into the future and predict anything accurately.

 

Now, the issue at hand: is astrology really a math/science related to astronomy?

What part did i lie about? The part that i doubt what you claim about John Calvin (and the others)? Or the part that you cannot continuing asserting things without proof? If the latter, then i would agree. You can most certainly continue, but that would be counter-productive and self-contradicting to the assurance you illustrate within your own posts.

You have lied so often that it is difficult to keep track. The latest would be your claim to have studied Calivin extensively. You obviously haven't because you don't have a clue what he said. You actually trip yourself up in your own postings and demonstrate that you are a liar.

For example, you first said:

While i have not read any works on Martin Luther or John Calvin....

But later you said

i have done a lot of research on Calvinism, and i agree with a lot of things it mentions

So you have done a lot of research on Calvinism but you haven't read a single work on Calvin.

 

Liar!

Also, if you would have said that this requirement of baptism is spiritual and does not deal with water, then that would indeed sound like something John Calvin would have said.

Wrong again.

Water baptism is the only possible mark that we have submitted to internal cleansing. Washing is by the blood of Christ but that is invisible. Water baptism is the outward sign of an inward cleansing. Without the sign we might speculate but we have no evidence that we are forgiven except by our ready acceptance of baptism

It is pretty funny that the most zealous Christians are often the ones who know the least about their so-called religion, and that they need atheists to educate them in their own beliefs.

Every human is related to life through the thread of love and religion. They follow the norms and decorum of their religions. But who is a true christian? A person gave me a site goodnewsfl.org. Can anyone tell me if the above website has the answer of my question?

Well, for a start you are wrong. Clearly not every human is 'related' through 'religion', unless you are saying that atheists are not human, which would be pretty insulting.
As for what a Christian is - ask 10 Christians and get 10 answers. In the broadest sense it is someone who believes that a 1st century Jew called Jesus is God (or at least part of the trinity).
In practical terms, some say you need baptism to be a Christian, some say not. Some say you must explicitly say that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, others say that simply obeying the commandments is all you need.

I happen to be very familiar with 'The Good News' ministry. I get their monthly magazine on a free subscription. In short it is complete garbage, but very glossy and nicely presented - like the website. As an example, the current edition carries an editorial piece titled 'Evolution vs Creationism'. It misrepresents science from the very first paragraph and makes a host of untrue and unsubstantiated statements of 'fact'.
If you want to read a comic, buy the Beano.

(I read it because I frequently come up against members of this fruity little gathering on the internet and it is nice to be able to quote their own bull**** back at them).

This is really an interesting question about Astrology, well I would say that it gives correct prediction but it depends so I would like to share a very nice Astrology service provider. findyourfate.com. It is all about the believe; if you believe in it than it works

 

LOL. Not really. It's more likely that if you believe then you are willing to overlook the numerous predictions that are completely wrong and focus on the one or two that are right. Humans are very good at kidding themselves when they want to, and some astrologists are fairly skilled at cold reading.

Astrology is the art of writing specific-sounding statements that are actually generally applicable.

Read a horoscope and you may find several points you agree with. Then give it to someone else of a different star sign and watch as they agree with the same points.

 

Here's your horoscope:

 

You like to be in control, but recently you have been out of sorts and feeling put-upon. This will change as Pluto rises in Pisces in April, and your energy levels will rise dramatically. The alignment of Saturn with Andromeda heralds problems on the 3rd of April, and you would do well to keep to a routine and not take unnecessary risks on that day. Mars is conjunction with the Crab nebula on the 5th, so you will receive an ego boost from an unexpected source.

 

Let me know how that goes.

I believe in Evolution.

 

I believe in Creation.

 

Yes, I believe in both.

 

How? You may ask?

 

The secret is in Genesis 1:1-2. Lets take a look at the Scriptures.

 

.

 

The word translated "was" from the Hebrew is better translated as "became". Most of the time, when you see "was" or "is" in your Old Testament Bible, it was supplied by the Translators for clarity. They were not in the oroginal Hebrew, because they are implied by the language. The fact that this word "was" actually in the original Hebrew text should give us a clue. Anyways, verse two is better translated as "The earth became without form and void..."

 

So why would the Earth become desolate? I believe it was the Fall of Satan. I mean, we can clearly see that Satan rebelled before the Creation story in Gensis 1:3-2:3. After all, we see him in the Garden of Eden leading Adam and Eve to sin.

 

So the Creation story in Genesis 1:3-2:3 is actually a RE-Creation story rather than a creation story. God is re-creating the world after God's judgement against Satan and his fallen angel comrades.

The trouble is that this makes as little sense, scientifically, as creationism does. You are still left trying to explain the current diversity of species from the survivors of the Ark - something which cannot be done.

Atheists do NOT necessarily have ANY belief.

Some atheists are sure that they can prove God does not exist - that IS belief.

Some, however, make no such claim.

I do not have ANY belief with regard to God. I see no evidence for a God and therefore I don't believe in one. If the evidence is produced then I will change my mind.

As kobra500 says, the onus is always on the person making the positive claim (that something exists) to provide the evidence for that claim. The default position is lack of belief UNTIL that evidence is forthcoming.

 

Do you believe in Zeus? Ra? Shiva? Jupiter? Is that 'lack of belief' itself a belief?

 

Atheism is a belief in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

In the words of Stephen Roberts:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods' date=' you will understand why I dismiss yours.[/quote']

No matter what religion we believe in, it is obviously clear that Christianity would be a great tool if used correctly and used with care and honesty. I see the power of Christianity in my community every day, and it is a positive force that changes live. It is a force that make people change their ways, and put down the crack rock or the alcohol bottle.

I don't agree that it is so obvious. I'm more familiar with Northern Ireland, where Protestants and Catholics have been slaughtering each other for a very long time; I see the Catholic church telling Africans that condoms are evil, and won't protect against Aids; I see the Anglican church falling apart over various forms of bigotry (homophobia and sexism being the main two).

My point is that at the root of Christianity, or at least in theory, is tolerance. I am not sure about the old testament, but that was the teaching of Jesus at least.

Again I don't agree. If you read the bible carefully you will see that Jesus was a good Jew. He was interested in saving the chosen people (Jews) not everyone else. He makes it clear that the 'laws' of the Old Testament (as contained in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) should be honoured to the letter (these are the laws that command the stoning of adulterers, the killing of children who cheek their parents, the massacre of any town or city containing unbelievers etc etc). Jesus was quite clear about how he saw the 'gentiles':

"Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5,6)

"It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." (Matthew 15:26)

(this is referring to a Gentile woman's request that he heal her daughter and comparing the Jews to children and the gentiles to dogs).It is Paul who, after Jesus's death, opens up the new church to the Gentiles - and he is criticised by other Christians for doing so. Paul was involved in a battle with the leaders of other sects at the time (including Peter). Thus John scowls at Paul and his Gentile following, who "say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan".

In the same way perception requires a conscious, so does logic. You could say logic is dependant on perception, seeing that logic is itself a thought process, as logic is formulated based on what is perceived. You can't have an observer without a conscious.

Why does perception require a consciousness? Plants perceive - they respond to external stimulii - but I think it would be a stretch to say that a plant was conscious. You also seem to be confusing the entity and the practice - logic does not require to be practiced in order to exist. For example, basic formal logic states that one entity may not be at different places at the same time. That needs no consciousness to 'police it'.

I am uncertain of what kind of judicial system you live under, but, going back to my chair builder analogy, being declared guilty simply because, for example, the person did not nail the chair to the ground, or whatever, i find absurd. That's like saying those who were robbed are just as guilty of robbery as those who robbed them. If the rules are injected with exceptions for a being simply because this being has greater potential than a human, then i would claim this judicial system to be inconsistent.

That is not a good analogy for many reasons. People are not chairs. A much better analogy would be that of the parent. If a parent created a playground for his children that was dangerous, and even 'had a feeling' that the children would injure themselves, and yet went ahead anyway then he/she would be guilty of several crimes, including reckless endangerment.

The judicial system i know, unless corrupt, could never declare someone guilty of a crime they didn't commit. In this assumed case, you (the plaintiff) are accusing God of an act He didn't commit.

This is just plain wrong. Ask someone to murder your wife and you can and will be charged with conspiracy to murder, which carries the same penalty as the act itself. God created the universe in full knowledge of the suffering and evil in it - in fact he created the evil. He is therefore clearly guilty for the results.

Arguing that simply creating humans God should be declared guilty of sin is not a(n) (winning) argument. In order for you to have evidence against God, you would have to show that God created humans for the sole purpose of committing sin. This is impossible for you, and it is Biblically shown that God didn't create them for them to commit sin. In other words, you have no case.

False. If I put barbed wire on a public footpath, it doesn't matter whether I did it solely to injure people - I am still guilty for any injury that results.

It is also interesting to see you saying that a being Who created personalities, Who allowed for things such as love and hate, Who knows you better than you do yourself, is incapable of swaying your position on how you perceive Him. If God were to show Himself to you and suddenly He'd be everything you'd want in a God, you're saying you wouldn't think differently of Him? Would you claim that thinking differently of Him in that point in time is you lacking free will? Does the existence of desires, of preference and of similar things contradict free will? Are you capable of loving what you hate? Are you capable of hating what you love? Does either contradict free will?

No I am not saying anything of the sort. If God appeared then my basic philosophy would compel me to accept his existence. That would be MY choice, not God's.

Tell me, would you be a monster because you acknowledge that there is evil in the world and have the potential to do something about it but choose not to? And is God a monster because He chooses to deal with evil in a way that differs in how you would prefer He treat evil? If God were an impersonal God, would He be a monster if He simply created and let things be? How does simply there being no need for evil make Him a monster? It doesn't; you would have to add things that are irrelevant to that in order to even claim that God is evil.

Yes I would. If I knew that a particular person was going to die horribly, I knew when and how, and yet I did nothing to either stop it or warn them - sure, I would be a monster.

Let's use your dice analogy:

<snipped irrelevant parts>
You missed the point.
The fact is that the dice will land on one number or another. If God can predict that in advance (and he must be able to), then God cannot do anything that would change that outcome in the future.
Here's a simple illustration:

Time T
God knows that event E will happen at time T+x

Time T+1
God does something that now means event E will NOT happen at time T+x

Time T+x
Event does not happen.

God might well have known all the possible events that could happen at time T+x, but the fact is that he knew that event E would happen and it did not happen, therefore he was wrong. It follows from simple logic that God cannot interfere in causality in any manner which would change future events, since that would mean his previous knowledge that those events would happen is wrong.

Now, the sharper reader will have seen a way out of this apparently unanswerable case.
God knows both what event will happen at time t+x AND he also knows that his intervention in the future will change what would have happened so that a different event occurs. he would have to know this, of course, at every point in the timeline (ie he must ALWAYS have known it).

This appears to answer my poser - but consider what it is in fact saying.
In order for this to be true, God must know in advance not only every action which can happen in the universe, but God must also know WHAT GOD WILL DO at every moment in the future. That means, for example, that praying to God is actually immoral, since you are asking God to change his actions and therefore prove himself fallible (because if he does something he wasn't going to do, then he never knew the future at all, since that will inevitably change it).
More troubling for the Christian is the fact that it also means that God has no freedom of action - everything he does is what he was always going to do. He is simply a wind-up robot acting on auto-pilot, unable to deviate at all from those actions which he has known, for eternity, that he will carry out. God's entire timeline of actions and interactions throughout his infinite existence must have been known precisely by God at every point in that infinite existence.

(This can actually be shown to give rise to several more paradoxes which make it further impossible that God can be omniscient and omnipotent).

Ah, i can see the confusion now. You define "subject to" as "unable to be changed by;" i define "subject to" as "can be applied to." Therefore, while logic is dependent on a (requiring the existence of a) conscious entity, it can be applied to practically anything.

Why do you think logic is dependant on consciousness? Do you think that things happen illogically when nobody is looking?

God would only be responsible if He takes part in every evil act caused by the creatures He created, as if by supporting evil acts. What you are suggesting is like saying: I built a chair to sit on it, i am therefore responsible for the actions of anyone who uses the chair to beat someone with it, knowing fully that any object can be used to hurt someone.

Nope, that defence doesn't hold. God CREATED the universe, God therefore created the evil and did nothing to stop it. In any judicial system in the world that counts as guilty. God could have chosen to create a universe where those particular evils did NOT happen, so by creating a universe where they DID happen he is directly and culpably responsible for them.

I'm not even omnipotent and i am capable of churning your emotions. I can only imagine what God is capable of doing if He so willed. Perhaps you are overthinking on the concept of free will to realize that people lack more control over themselves than they thought they did. You may be able to train yourself to remain stable when conversing with people, but the fact that anyone even requires training says much about self control and, therefore, free will. Then again, Who knows if all the training in the world could overcome what God can dish out.

No, God cannot make me believe against my will because if he could do so then he would loose any excuse for evil in the world. The only way which Christians can justify the presence of evil is by saying that it is necessary if there is to be free-will. But if free-will is not absolute and God can change it then there is no need for evil and God therefore becomes a monster..

Indeed, potential events. You cannot define omniscience as knowing everything and then go on to say that by changing an event God no longer knows everything. Where did that knowledge disappear to? It didn't go anywhere, for by definition omniscience means to know, to lack ignorance. Simply acting does not make knowledge disappear. You require ignorance in order for that to happen, but omniscience contradicts ignorance; ignorance does not fit within omniscience. It is absurd to say that you can become ignorant or wrong in knowledge by "changing" a course of action when you know all possible outcomes anyway.

It is not at all absurd. If I know that when I throw this cricket ball, it will hit the wall opposite, and then suddenly the wall falls down, my knowledge is now not knowledge anymore, it is faulty assertion.
If God knows everything that will happen, and then those things do not happen, then what he 'knows' is in fact wrong. God can know every possible outcome, but that does not help, since it doesn't determine WHICH possible outcome will occur. I know that if I roll a dice I will get 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. I don't know WHICH I will get. If God DOES know which I will get then it follows absolutely that God cannot do anything to change that result, otherwise his 'knowledge' of what I would roll was in fact not knowledge at all, but error.

but what produce the big bang?if the universe was very small and dense it should have create a dark hole isn't it ?

Sort of, yes. A singularity. We are still inside it and will always be so.

Subject-to does not necessarily imply pre-dating, especially if we assume that the "laws of logic" are dependent on our spacetime (though this assumption is not required anyway). I wouldn't think it unreasonable, though, to believe that God instilled logic within us for us to notice and put to use (to say that conscious effort is required for the use of logic).

Well, yes it does - certainly in this case. If God is subject to (ie unable to change) the laws of Logic then it follows that they exist 'outside' God and must, therefore, be eternal, if God is eternal - otherwise God would have once been free to act illogically but can now no longer do so - which would destroy the notion of omnipotence.

For "proof 1." Eventhough omnipotence is irrelevant as to whether or not God need(n't) create, if we are to use terms like virtue?to imply (high) moral standards?, we would realize the accusation of evil placed on God is unjustified. For simply bearing knowledge of something does not automatically place responsibility on God just 'cause one course of action lead to something deemed dreadful. For if intentions were to be disregarded out of any accusation, i cannot agree that any formal justice or criticism of the situation has occurred. Further evidence of false accusation is seen when reading "he did create." On the contrary, what He did create was a creature pure and without sin ("in His image"). Just 'cause this very creature eventually committed wrong does not mean that God created an evil creature.

a) God is omniscient and omnipotent. It therefore follows that at the moment of creation God could foresee every action and event within that creation. God could have created a universe in which some things did not happen. Therefore, since God created the current universe, in full knowledge of all the outcomes, God IS directly responsible for everything that happens.

For "proof 2." How so? Can He not make you hate Him with your own free will? How does that mean He cannot make you love Him with your own free will?

No he cannot. I choose to love or hate him. If he can over-ride my choice then free-will is an illusion and the justification for God creating evil is therefore destroyed.

For "proof 3." So Him knowing that His omnipotence will cause or change the future is not possible for Him? I am curious as to how His own knowledge of His own actions prohibit Him from making use of His omnipotence to make a change in the future. Do you mean He cannot take back a potential action due to His knowledge? Is it not the case that knowledge given from omniscience makes potential actions irrelevant? So why would we consider potential actions for omniscience? Whatever it is that you meant, i'll leave for your response.

If God knows that event X will happen in the future at time T, and God then changes things so that event X does not happen at time T, then his previous 'knowledge' was WRONG and he did not know what would actually happen at time T - therefore he was never omniscient.

Would it be accurate to say that you are saying that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent because He cannot be weak and ignorant? Perhaps you are assuming that terms like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" implies not having any limits in general. If that is the case, i could understand why someone would get that impression, but omnipotence just implies not having a limit on power, and omniscience implies not having a limit on knowledge.

Not having a limit is the way I interpret the words.

Omnipotence is not self-contradicting, only the "old question" is. As i have told you before, its fallacy is of contrary premises leading to the same conclusion:

He can => He isn't omnipotent.

He can't => He isn't omnipotent.

Logically, this cannot be the case, because logic requires that mutually exclusive premises lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. Therefore God is capable of both attributes, as He is described to have.

 

So God is subject to the 'laws of Logic'? Interesting. If God is subject to the laws of logic it follows that they pre-date God. Since God is supposed to be eternal then when did the laws of Logic come into being? The laws of logic are dependant on our spacetime. What is logically impossible in our particular universe need not be logically impossible in another.

 

In fact the 'laws of logic' vary, even within this universe. Let's take your example of mutually exclusive premises.

Brian is in Bolton and Brian is in Manchester. You would, presumably, agree that if those statements are made in the same instant that they are mutually exclusive? (ie a person cannot be in two distinct places at the same time).

But that only applied to people, it is not a universal. Sub-atomic particles can and do 'exist' in several places at once.

 

As it happens, however, I don't need to rely on this argument in order to refute the notions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Proof 1. If God is omnipotent and omniscience then God cannot be wholly good.

(a) Being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

(b ) Being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

© By virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

 

Proof 2. God cannot make me love him with my own free will.

 

Proof 3. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place.

I know that this part is part of another conversation you were having (though it is irrelevant to the topic), but i seek to post a comment on it.
Your argument works in reverse. It should not be the case that a limit defines an attribute, but the attribute defining the limit. Also, a "limit on possible states" is not a limit on the attribute itself. Can God have attributes that make Him have unlimited power and knowledge? Yes. Does the inability of having a weaker and ignorant state, therefore, prevent Him from being omniscient or omnipotent? No. So God is able to "occupy" every "state" except that which contradicts omniscience and omnipotence.

This is illogical.
Consider 2 states - Alive and dead. Neither, at first glance, contradicts omniscience or omnipotence. It is as possible for a non-living thing to possess both as it is for a living thing (a super super computer if you like). The states are mutually exclusive. If God is alive then God cannot logically be dead - the latter is ruled-out by the former. The same is true for every possible attribute. Any attribute automatically rules out a potential infinity of others. Brown hair rules out potentially infinite other shades.
The attribute defines the limit. A limit cannot define an attribute. For example, a limit is the fact that a person may not simultaneously have brown and blond hair (having 'both' is neither). That does not tell you anything about the hair-colour of a person.
Unlimited power is itself a contradiction, normally highlighted by the old question - can God create a weight he cannot lift?

By the way, a man with brown hair can indeed have black hair. Of course, not naturally (unless perhaps a new drug were to come out that can issue such a permanent biological change), but certainly can have different colors of hair.

Then the hair is not brown. The hair is either brown or not brown. That particular attribute can change with time, but that is not possible for God, since God is eternal and unchanging according to Christian theology, and in any case it is not important - at any time the attribute 'brown hair' limits the person from occupying any other state of hair colour.If we then talk about intrinsic attributes, then this limits God even further. If God has attributes which are part of 'godness' then they cannot change without 'godness' changing.

Well, as regards having a religious background - I can probably see your religious home and raise you all-in. I was brought up in a devout Catholic family. I went to Catholic single-sex primary and junior schools and at 11 I went to a Salesian (Catholic Monks) single-sex Grammar school until I was 18. I was taught by Catholic monks - both Salesian and Jesuit - which is why I know the scripture and theology of many Christian sects pretty well (I studied theology for 3 years).

These Salesians are the same order who are much in the news over the last months for abusing kids. It went on at my school but I wasn't really assaulted - had my 'shirt tucked in' a few times by one particular Priest who shall remain nameless (he would wait outside the changing rooms after 1st and 2nd year games lessons and ensure that 'everyone had their shirt tucked in'. I know lads who had much worse but I won't talk about that because that is their story, not mine to tell.

 

You might think that this explains my atheism, bnt it isn't that simple. I genuinely studied the religion because it intrigued me. I knew from an early age that there had to be more than the basic message. Clearly the message given to the 'plebs' was a load of nonsense. Virgin births, water into wine, transubstantiation - all that stuff was clearly the window dressing for the public and I knew there must be something more substantial for the 'insiders'. So I studied. I studied Aquinas, Augustine, Ockham, Erasmus; then moved on to more contemporary theologians like Butler, Kierkegaard and Newman. I thought I was getting close a couple of times - particularly with Kierkegaard - but then I realised that I was mistaking complexity for wisdom. Sure, Newman could make an interesting argument, but when you analysed it, not only was it pretty poor, in philosophical terms, it was actually monstrous. Here's one of Newman's quotes that really stuck in my head:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the Sun and Moon to drop from Heaven' date=' for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die from starvation in extremest agony ? than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.[/quote']

That is taken from his Apologia. The sheer fanatical evil of it would take some beating. Better everyone die in agony than one person tell a white lie? Wow!

 

That was actually a seminal moment (I would have been 15 at the time). It was like having a blindfold removed. I realised that I had been looking for subtlety and meaning where there actually was none. For all the theological sophistry and linguistic gymnastics, ultimately the emperor had no clothes. It took another year to completely convince myself, but after that time I was as certain as I could be that the Catholic religion was actually evil, not just wrong. I spent the next year checking out the 'opposition' - starting with Luther and working through Calvin and Zwingli and ending with the Liberal Theology movement of the early 20th century (Liberal Theology is hilarious rather than evil. If you ever want a good laugh then pick up some Tillich or Holloway and watch them tie themselves in semantic knots to avoid defining God as a 'thing' and thus avoid the central flaw of that definition*. They both end up with similar end-positions - God IS love (Holloway) or God IS the 'ground state' (Tillich). Ultimately their arguments fully acknowledge that God has no attributes and is not an entity (I kid you not). Now, to mere students of philosophy such as myself, I assume that if a x has no attributes and is not an entity then you may as well say that it doesn't exist. The fun is watching them try to avoid that basic conclusion by performing heroic feats of theological twisting and turning (they both fail).

 

So, at 17 I knew that Christianity was (depending on the sect) either evil or comical. I have debated Christianity with Jesuit theologians (the cream of Catholic 'thinkers'. Many of them are much more intelligent than I am but none of them could actually make a convincing defence of the faith. I have yet to see such a defence, though I do still look when I have time.

 

*if God is a thing, God is finite. An attribute is, in fact, a limit, so if God possesses ANY attributes then God is not omnipotent or omniscient. I can prove that in symbolic logic but it's a pain generating the symbols so I'll just give a quick example. A man with brown hair does not have black hair. The attribute 'brown hair' is a limit on the possible 'states' which the man can occupy. The same applies to any attribute.

 

On whether religion can be good for an individual - I'm still not convinced. I certainly know what you mean - I know quite a few people who's faith is at the centre of their being and without that faith they might well collapse into a heap of self-loathing, nihilism. The point is that THEY HAD TO LEARN THAT DEPENDENCE. They didn't just wake up one morning and independently discover God. They were indoctrinated with the notion of God, as we all are, from the time they could speak. If they lived in completely secular societies then they would never have been able to develop that dependence in the first place. I really don't see that dependence as a good thing - I see it as effectively little different to a drug habit. They are essentially abrogating their own responsibility for their life and handing it over to God. I think that is cowardly, unintelligent and actually childish. Sure, it may motivate them to do good works, be really nice people (I've met several Mormons and I have to say they were all really nice people) and enjoy their life, but it isn't much different to taking the blue pill. If your goal in life is just to be happy then get in the box and take the blue pill - it is a no-brainer. You will certainly be happier than if you took the red pill and stayed in the real world.

 

You didn't discriminate by calling religious people ignorant. You (over) generalised, but that isn't the same thing. Discrimination requires treating people differently based on their religion (or whatever factor). When I say that creationists are scientifically illiterate OR dishonest OR both, that is not discrimination. That is a statement which I can support logically - it is also empirically observed and tested. In other words it is as close to 'true' as any scientist can ever claim to be on any issue. Whether I then go on to discriminate against such people is a different issue.

 

Do you believe God exist? No - (belief = meaningless)

Belief is a Humpty-dumpty word*.

I like to distinguish between faith and belief. Belief is simply your position on something. it might be supported by evidence and what we would all normally call a fact. I believe that the sun is around 92.9 million miles from the earth. I doubt that belief is wrong, and many people would call it a fact. So belief is simply what you think - and it may or may not be based on rationality and evidence. So why do I call this belief and not fact? That is the scientist in me. I know that nothing can be absolutely proven outside closed systems of logic (ie tautologies such as mathematics or pure logic). You cannot 'prove' anything about the empirical world. You can establish that something is true with a level of certainty so high that only a nutcase would doubt it. If I tell you that jumping from a seven story building will kill you then I cannot absolutely proove it, but you would be mad to demand such proof and jump anyway :-) In general 'true' is not a word any scientist or empiricist should reach for - leave it for the mathematicians and logicians.

 

Faith is different. Faith is belief without, or even in spite of, evidence. Faith is a sub-set of belief. You probably do have a few things which you believe without evidence - most people do (including me). I would say that my goal is to keep such faith to a minimum, since I regard lack of evidence as a negative, not a positive and I much prefer to base decisions and opinions on evidence. In fact I can (and have) persuasively argue that any action taken on the basis of faith is unethical. I believe that people have a responsibility to inform themselves as well as they can before taking decisions - especially if such decisions impact on others, but even if they do not do so directly. We would not accept a pilot or driver who operated on faith - I would be off the plane before the door closed. I want my pilots and drivers to operate on experience and knowledge if that is OK with everyone :-) I cannot see any decision that is better made from a standpoint of ignorance. Now, of course, some decisions taken on a 'hunch' or on faith will pay-off - that is simple statistics in action. That does not make the decision process ethical or right - a pilot who trusted in his Mojo or his God might well make a fantastic landing - I still wouldn't be on the plane :-)

 

*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

I didn't know that 45% of Americans believed in creationism, but its not at all surprising. In fact, I would expect the percentage to be higher than that based on my experiences and community. I would think the percentage would be at least 60%. I suppose that is because I live in a community where at least 99% of the people claim to be Christian. The city, which is medium sized (over 200,000 pop), is pretty much highly religious also. The governing body of our city has prayers before every meeting - which I think might be illegal. In my community, which is majority black, not believing in God is taboo. You are almost immediately an outcast at you are outspoken about your disbelief in religion. An atheist is something that exist only on television to many of them, like aliens. I think the younger individuals, around my age, are more tolerant of people who are non-religious. I told quite a few people around my age what I believed, and apart from an intense debate, they accepted it and didn't treat any different from what I can tell - but that's maybe because they already viewed me as a radical intellectual anyway. I only had a problem with one girl, and she was obviously a die-hard Christian, and if you ask me, she was the devil (ironically) incarnated. After she got pregnant, she pretty much stopped rolling her eyes at me and making funny looking. I guess she was too focused on getting forgiveness for engaging in sex, or at least it seemed.

Yes, this is something many Americans don't seem to think is odd. A good number of British people are Christians, but there is a difference between being a Christian and being a Creationist. Creationism is anti-scientific nonsense which requires the believer to be scientifically illiterate or dishonest (there is literally no other choice). To believe that evolution is a myth, that the world is 6 or 7 thousand years old, etc, means one has absolutely no grasp of even very basic science. In the modern world that is not only worrying, it is disabling.

Remember the words of Voltaire?

Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

....

But I learned to accept people and their beliefs. Religion does benefit a lot of people, and I see it first hand.

Hmm...I am not sure that is correct. Let's put it this way :- if I give you a choice of the red pill or the blue pill, which one do you take? Do you think that living a comfortable life of delusion in a box is ever preferable to living with reality? The Matrix is a good metaphor for this dilemma, but my philosophy classes were a long time before it, so my professor framed it in these terms:

If I offer you a choice of putting your body into a coma and plugging your brain into a machine that will give you most everything you want, keep you stimulated and happy, or alternatively living in your body in the real world, with all the potential hardships and dangers that entails. Which do you choose?

At this point he would add - if you choose the former then I suggest you go and take council with wiser men than I, because I cannot help you.

 

Can it ever be beneficial to chose the 'plug in' option (or to take the blue pill)? I'll leave you to consider that one.

 

Then consider that religion very often makes people into bigots. They are certain that their beliefs are right and that others are wrong - based on nothing much at all. Oh sure, many religious people do good works for charity. Al-Queda and Hamas are known for their extensive charity work in the middle east. Does that mean they are benign, let alone 'good' ? I think not. Then consider how many millions of Africans have died from AIDS because of the Pope and his nonsense about condoms (not just telling people not to use them, but encouraging the spread of stories that they actually GIVE you Aids - all well documented). The breathtaking evil of that can scarcely be credited, and I haven't even started on the years of systematic abuse of children and cover-ups which followed - including the current Pope who knew all about the current cases 10 years ago when he was head of the Vatican enforcement group - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He should be on trial, not lecturing people about condoms. And I damn well hope that Catholics ARE doing lots of charity work in Africa - it might ease their consciences for all the evil they have also done - it is the very least they can do.

This is not to take anything away from it being irrational. As long as no one is forcing religion down my throat, I don't force agnosticism down their throat. I think a lot of atheist have begun to do the same thing that Christians historically did - force the belief down the throats of others. I say let people believe what they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the life of a third party.

 

Now here I have to take strong issue. You just told me that an atheist in your community would have a very hard time, particularly if they were honest about their lack of faith. Now you are telling me that atheists should leave such people alone with their bigotry? (and let's not beat around the bush - bigot is the correct word*). Well I absolutely disagree about as strongly as it is possible to disagree.

 

Firstly I'll be damned if I will suffer discrimination at the hands of religious bigots* because of my beliefs (or lack of them). Again, be clear, that is exactly what we are talking about here - bigots. From your posting I get the impression you might be black (simply because you mentioned that the community is largely black). I'm not going to try and say that religious bigotry is comparable with the racist bigotry that many blacks suffered (and some still suffer) in the US, but I am going to say that it is the same animal. Are you really going to take the appeasement route with bigots, and keep your head down and your mouth shut? Of course people have a right to believe whatever they like, and I will stand and fight for their right to believe in little pink fairies if they choose (and I really mean that - I have done it before). But I absolutely DEMAND the same treatment in return. How DARE the religious demand respect and tolerance for THEIR views when they are often completely unwilling to show the same to others.

 

Secondly religion DOES influence my life - and everyone else's life. Look around. Many of the people in the twin towers were atheists - it didn't stop them dying at the hands of religious zealots. We're in the season of 'Christmas' where Christians traditionally get all uptight about the 'real meaning' of the festival and try to make people who don't share their beliefs conform to some Christian notion of what is correct behaviour. That is supremely ironic since the real meaning of 25th December is a pagan festival which the Christians nicked to make themselves popular with the Romans. Saturnalia, Yuletide, Mithras-time - THAT is the real meaning of 'Christmas' - a pagan festival celebrating the solstice and the re-emergence of 'life' from the 'death' of winter. I've seen Christians go absolutely apoplectic when this simple truth is pointed out. One woman knocked on my door to ask me to join the 'Keep Christmas for Christ' campaign and was really rude and abusive when I pointed out a few facts about the season. So much for her Christian charity (I am slightly ashamed to admit that she riled me so much that I encouraged one of my dogs to show a few teeth to get rid of the *BLEEP* (not to bite or hurt, of course - I would never do that).

 

I've suffered prejudice and discrimination for being an atheist in my younger days, even here in the supposedly 'secular' UK (and again, I'm not comparing it to what many Black people experienced at the hands of racist bigots in the same period, but it IS the same animal, just with much fewer teeth and claws). Up until a couple of decades ago it was pretty dodgy declaring you were an atheist, if you wanted to 'get on' in your job and keep your position in society. It is precisely because of outspoken atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens that this has changed so much in that time. If you leave the religious to themselves they will NOT leave you to yourself. Many regard it as their solemn duty to 'bring you to Christ'. I'm not interested in 'converting' Christians to atheism but many of them are sure as hell interested in converting me to their beliefs.

 

Finally, an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God - period. A 'Strong' atheist asserts that God does not exist. That is a faith position, in the same way that asserting God DOES exist is a faith position. Most atheists I know are not strong atheists because they, like me, are rationalists and don't want to adopt faith positions on matters supernatural. I do not assert that God does not exist because there is no way I can prove that assertion. I say that there is no good evidence to persuade me to take God's existence seriously, in exactly the same way that I cannot prove that there is not a small teapot in orbit around Pluto, but there is no good reason for me to think that there is.

PS you say you are an agnostic but I think you are an atheist and I'll explain why.

Many people are so anxious to avoid the word atheist that they are happy to go along with a complete misuse of the word agnostic.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. I have a friend who is Christian and is agnostic.

An atheist answers no to the question 'Do you believe in God(s)?'.

An agnostic answers no to the question 'Do you think the existence of God can be proved/disproved'?

I answer no to both and am, therefore, an agnostic atheist - and I suspect you are too :-)

Agnostic does NOT mean someone who is not sure whether God exists or not, it means someone who doesn't think it is possible to prove it one way or the other. Quite a few Clergy in the Church of England are agnostic.

 

Atheists like me (and we are the majority amongst atheists, I'm pretty sure) are not interested in 'forcing belief' on anyone. I have no beliefs to force on anyone. What I am MORE than interested in, is making sure that religious ideology is kept where it belongs - in people's private lives and in the churches, and out of civil, political and legal matters.

 

I actually envy you in the US here. You have a constitution which clearly draws a line between religion and state - the founding fathers were very clear-headed on that matter. In the UK we have no such legal division and religion pokes its nose into all kinds of state events and oprganisations. We even have a bunch of unelected Bishops sitting in our Parliament passing laws - and, get this - we still have a law of Blasphemy that makes it technically an offence to say bad things about religion - but not any religion, you understand - only the Church of England. You can be as rude as you like about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics and the rest, but you cannot legally be rude about the Church of England.

So I don't accept that if we leave the religious to their beliefs that they will do the same for others - 2000 years of history shows that won't happen.

 

Let me give you an example. I am a teacher. There is a growing number of creationists here in the UK - though nowhere near as many as in the US - and, like in the US, these people want to introduce 'Intelligent design' into the school science curriculum. Now that not only affects the kids, if affects me directly because I would be expected to teach it - or at least not speak against it. I am not going to teach fariytales in Science lessons so it is important to me that this 'movement' is challenged robustly at every opportunity so that they do not gain power by default, whilst well meaning people congratulate themselves for being oh so tolerant and understanding. (And I don't mean that last statement to be taken personally, but I DO mean it).

 

* Bigot - one who is intolerant of other creeds, races or opinions. One who is irrationally devoted to their own opinions or beliefs and cannot accept that other opinions or beliefs may be equally valid.

 

That is a perfect description of many religious people I meet in life. Convinced that their little religious stgories are the truth and that anyone who doesn't buy into them is either bad, mad, or hasn't quite understood. The really annoying thing is that I know Christian scripture and theology pretty well - much more than most people who tell me, in patronising tones, that they hope I'll 'rediscover my faith' - as if I am somehow inferior or incomplete because I don't believe in their particular sky-fairy.

 

I'll finish this with another true story. About 4 months after my father died - my father was a devout catholic - I received a call at the door from one of his ex workmates. He was a Jehova's Witness and he stood on my step and told me that although it was too late for my father to gain salvation and avoid the fires of hell, there was still time for me, and did I want a copy of the Watchtower?

Can you believe that? I'm afraid that on that occasion I DID get violent, and I kicked his *bottom* all the way down the street. I still remember it vividly and that was nearly 30 years ago .....

 

PS - just to lighten the mood a little after that rant, you might enjoy a little tune I knocked-up last night on this theme. it's a different take on 'Stairway to Heaven' featuring a voice synthesiser on lead vocal (I did a version using my own voice but I prefer 'Mike247' :-)

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Many of those who are critics of religion (including me) are driven by quite pragmatic concerns rather than a wish to establish their own view as dogma. You mention US surveys. Here is the one which I find scary and which prompts much of my criticism of Christianity.

45% of Americans think that evolution is a lie and that man was created, pretty much in his present form, a few thousand years ago.

(and I am using a very conservative GALLOP poll for that figure).

I find that horrifying and frightening. Nearly half of the population of the world's most technologically sophisticated country believe in fairy stories. The implications for the wider understanding of pretty much anything are completely horrendous.

Disregarding the fact that you would translate "ages" (plural) to "age" (singular) and disregarding the contextual evidence (e.g. references in the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelations, Paul's writings and similarities in the other Gospels, etc.) on why the verse is translated the way it is in major translations, consider the following: Let's assume that it is better translated as "life in the reign of Jesus." The Bible mentions that Jesus is to reign until God puts all of his enemies under Jesus's feet. This is not to happen until Judgement Day. If it were true that we were to assume things in the millenial sense, it's been almost 2000 years since the Biblical crucifixion. That is more than one millenium.

But the view at the time was that Judgement day was imminent. Most of the early Christian sects were millenialists - they believed that judgement day would happen sooner rather than later. The fact that it didn't is a weakness in the bible, not in the critique.

actually if you say universe is infinite then you should say its dimensions are infinite too. you can never model universe exactly with a bounded matrix so every model you see (4D & 5D) are just with some approximations and as dimensions go higher the accuracy goes higher too, so if you say it is infinite based on a 4D model then your answer has an approximation which means it can be wrong.

Two problems with that.a) I didn't say the universe was infinite - I said it was unbounded, which is not the same.
b ) Bounded infinity is a common concept in basic topology, starting with constructs like the Koch Snowflake (infinite length in bounded area). I don't see why inaccuracy is introduced. In simple terms if I consider a three dimensional spherical shell from a two dimensional standpoint, I have an unbounded finite. I can walk for-ever, on the shell, and never meet a wall or boundary, but the curvature is such that the total volume of the universe is finite.

Time is firstly another excuse for us to feel secure. Scientists fail to answer such for their lack of aknowledgment of the universe.

Huh? Scientists are the ones finding out how the universe works...

to answer such a question will be extremly difficult. since we base the definition of time according to the radius of the universe we know its pretty hard to define it..

Radius of the universe? I must have missed this in my physics lectures. Can you tell me which universe you mean? Observable? Co-moving?

Let's presume you are on the ball and mean the comoving distance - that's about 46 billion light years. Doesn't seem like a nice number to base a system of time on - and if we did then how did we measure it, and how does it relate to the way I thought we developed the units of time - solar orbital time - ie the year.?

what if time differs according to certain areas of the universe you are in. lets consider if the universe has a border line how would time be like in those areas?????.

The universe doesn't have a border - you are thinking 3 dimensionally but you need to think 4 dimensionally.

Time, can simply be explained as a 'serial' quantity that exists to our knowledge as a superior form within the universe.

No, it really can't, because that is not an explanation, it is an assertion. And there are a few problems with it:

a ) Serial quantity is meaningless, unless you can give me an example of a parallel quantity.

b ) I haven't a clue what 'superior form' means but I know that time doesn't have a form and I struggle to imagine what it could be superior to....

Theta brainwave activity is associated with daydreaming. Ever drive home down a very familiar route and find, when you arrive, that you can't remember driving at all - your mind was on other thoughts and even though you drove perfectly well you can't remember any of it. That's theta. It is not surprising that feelings of being able to remote view would occur in this state (ie with the brain displaying predominantly theta waves) but it's pretty unlikely to be a real phenomenon. Numerous tests have been done on those claiming remote viewing abilities and the only positive results occurred in the early, poorly controlled and methodologically flawed studies. Properly controlled studies show no ability to remote view.
Then there is the Randi challenge. During the time the prize of $1 million was on offer we have had:
D. Khoury, Aura Manipulator & Astral Traveler
and a lot more who either dropped-out when they saw the preliminary tests or failed those same tests.

Being a christian,i did trusted my God as my Lord and savior of my life ,because i can do nothing to save my self or to solve any problems.Jesus is my only one i trusted or believe because Jesus said whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.John3:16.

Normally translated as

"?God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed, but have everlasting life?

The problem is that the actual Greek reads differently.

zoe aionion is the phrase used - it means 'life ages'. Life of the age was a phrase used by Hebrews in the millenial sense - it translates much better as 'life in the reign of Jesus'

God need for sinners is to believe Him or trusting Him only to save.There is no other way to heaven but only Jesus.

But the manual of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless her holy hooves) says that only by eating Ham and Pineapple pizzas may we approach a state of contentedness. There is no point going to heaven unless you are content - you'd be all grumpy and put a real downer on the atmosphere....

Yes Jesus did exist.He is God became human nature,or putting a human nature and to die for all sinners.Jesus did exist before the world was He is already did exist.cOLSSIANS1:17,18.And he is before all things,and by him John1:l1,14.

You believe the bible is a historical document - I don't. You have faith, I don't. I am open to the possibility that Jesus either didn't exist at all, or was simply a 1st century Jewish radical, you aren't.
There is no real meeting point between faith and rationality - I doubt there is anything I could say that would change your mind...

To believe God is better or you will be damned.Why people not believe God even they know there is heaven and earth that who made all things still not believe Jesus.They blinde and Satan did working on their life.

I don't believe in God and I certainly don't know that there is 'heaven'. You may think I'm blind, that's up to you, but I know the bible pretty well and I'm familiar with Christian theology. I find it pretty silly.
The argument that you have to believe or you are damned is the argument of a sulky child - you have to play the game my way or I'm taking my bat home. The fact remains that the majority of people in the world DON'T believe the same things you do and most of us are content to let you believe what you wish to believe without threats.

Okay good response.We cannot control it,and that will happen at any time.God is the only one who own our life,and just to live on this earth for a while and then He will take again.But the Question where we go that time after death?There is hell?and heaven?Do you assured your life to live in heaven or in hell?Heaven is the best and perfect place to live in. than hell.Choose heaven to live,by having accepted Jesus now and believing him only to save.John1:12

 

Of course we can control it - if I find myself with a terminal disease facing months of pain, you better believe I WILL control it. Where you go after death is your own choice - you can go 6ft down for the worms, or you can go to a gas-fired BBQ for an hour or so. I'll take the BBQ I think.

There is heaven and hell in YOUR worldview, not in mine, but in the spirit of cooperation I'll try to help.

 

What do we know about heaven? Well, Isaiah seems to have some information which might be useful:

Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Isaiah 30:26

 

That gives us enough information to do some sums. Heaven gets as much radiation from the moon as the earth does from the Sun, and it gets seven times seven = 49 times as much from the sun as eath does. That makes 50 times more in total.

 

OK, we can use Stefan-Boltzmann's law to calculate the termperature. (H/E)^4 = 50

(where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300?K)

 

This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798 Kelvin (525?C).

 

Now, what do we know about hell?

Revelations is useful here:

" But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

 

OK - we know that brimstone (sulphur) turns gaseous at 444.6?C, so hell must be cooler than this otherwise the lake would evaporate.

 

So, given that hell is less than 444.6?C and heaven is around 525?C I think your best choice to stay the coolest would be hell...Heaven sounds a bit too toasty for comfort....