Do you believe in God?

[The Heretic]

That's an incorrect characterization of my perspective, Kalboy. I also think in holistic context.

Nevertheless, thanks to previous experience, I know debating with you would be an exercise in futility. However, perhaps a parable will illustrate the paradox of the existence of a perfect creator and the current state of the universe. Enjoy!

SOCRATES: What sort of pot would you get if it were made by a perfect potter?

HERETIC: That's easy, Socrates. You'd get a pot, perfectly made and without flaws.

SOCRATES: And what sort of tool would you get, if it were made by a perfect blacksmith?

HERETIC: Why, Socrates, I suppose you would get a perfect tool.

SOCRATES: And what sort of music would you get if it were played by a perfect musician?

HERETIC: Perfect music. But really, Socrates, these are questions even a child could answer.

MENO: [standing nearby]: Indeed!

PROTAGORAS: [also, standing by, snorts]: Why don't you get to the point, Socrates!

SOCRATES: You are right, my questions are very simple. But that is for my own benefit, as I am a simple man and like to progress slowly and surely. But now I will ask a much more difficult question, since you implore it of me. What sort of world would you get if it were made by a perfect god?

 

[kalboy]

That's an incorrect characterization of my perspective, Kalboy. I also think in holistic context.

Nevertheless, thanks to previous experience, I know debating with you would be an exercise in futility. However, perhaps a parable will illustrate the paradox of the existence of a perfect creator and the current state of the universe. Enjoy!

SOCRATES: What sort of pot would you get if it were made by a perfect potter?

HERETIC: That's easy, Socrates. You'd get a pot, perfectly made and without flaws.

SOCRATES: And what sort of tool would you get, if it were made by a perfect blacksmith?

HERETIC: Why, Socrates, I suppose you would get a perfect tool.

SOCRATES: And what sort of music would you get if it were played by a perfect musician?

HERETIC: Perfect music. But really, Socrates, these are questions even a child could answer.

MENO: [standing nearby]: Indeed!

PROTAGORAS: [also, standing by, snorts]: Why don't you get to the point, Socrates!

SOCRATES: You are right, my questions are very simple. But that is for my own benefit, as I am a simple man and like to progress slowly and surely. But now I will ask a much more difficult question, since you implore it of me. What sort of world would you get if it were made by a perfect god?

An exercise in futility huh? Well, in my opinion I think debating with you is quite a challenge of patience on my side. I have no clue what you mean by seeing things from a holistic approach. Remember, not everything is subject to philosophical debate, if you are going to bring holism, Cartesian epistemology or even the peculiar quantum mechanism theory on the table, so be it, I think that’s quite egocentric.
A key flaw in your comical argument is that it takes for grant that humans are items such as flowers and hammers and songs without considering that humans are rational or sometimes foolish beings that mainly acts upon for their own self interest. However, my point is that God, or whatever you want to call it, is something that you find in yourself. People do not have to believe in God just because he/she/it created the universe that is an act of appreciation, not a belief. People should not believe in god just because they wants to go to heaven after they die. And no, I’m not supporter of Cartesian, and I think it is not justified for people to believe in something out of apprehension. I can’t tell you why some people believe and some don’t. And I’m not saying that you should or shouldn’t. what bothers me is that some people have to SEE to believe and reject anything that does not have a physical dimension, and I think it is an evidence of insecure on their parts.

 

[The Heretic]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE... YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED....

An exercise in futility huh? Well, in my opinion I think debating with you is quite a challenge of patience on my side. I have no clue what you mean by seeing things from a holistic approach.

Don't be lazy. There's this thing called "dictionary." You have tools handy. Use them.

Remember, not everything is subject to philosophical debate, if you are going to bring holism, Cartesian epistemology or even the peculiar quantum mechanism theory on the table, so be it, I think that’s quite egocentric.

Please do not project your insecurities on me. Having knowledge about a topic and discussing about that knowledge is not egocentric at all. Unless you think being ignorant is a virtue.

Those other things you mentioned are irrelevant to the topic, after all, since there is no point talking about them. And i disagree completely - God has been a hot button topic for philosophy for thousands of years. Millions of pages of classical literature is chock-full of evidence that says otherwise.

A key flaw in your comical argument is that it takes for grant that humans are items such as flowers and hammers and songs without considering that humans are rational or sometimes foolish beings that mainly acts upon for their own self interest.

:roll:
That's not my argument. Care to re-read my post again?

However, my point is that God, or whatever you want to call it, is something that you find in yourself. People do not have to believe in God just because he/she/it created the universe that is an act of appreciation, not a belief. People should not believe in god just because they wants to go to heaven after they die.

This is a particular type of God you are describing. Why should yours be better than anyone else's God? Since every believer of a particular deity is atheistic to all the other gods, i take that single final step further.

And no, I’m not supporter of Cartesian, and I think it is not justified for people to believe in something out of apprehension.

Who said anything about a "Cartesian?" Do you have a personal problem with Cartesians? They rob you your lunch money back in elementary school or what?

I can’t tell you why some people believe and some don’t. And I’m not saying that you should or shouldn’t. what bothers me is that some people have to SEE to believe and reject anything that does not have a physical dimension, and I think it is an evidence of insecure on their parts.

Is that your medical opinion? Whether you are capable of making correct judgments of other people's psychological states, why don't you try and addressing what i wrote, instead of all this tired song-and-dance of agitprop? Do you have anything relevant to my analogy of a "perfect world?"

 

[kalboy]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE... YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED....

Don't be lazy. There's this thing called "dictionary." You have tools handy. Use them.

Please do not project your insecurities on me. Having knowledge about a topic and discussing about that knowledge is not egocentric at all. Unless you think being ignorant is a virtue.

Those other things you mentioned are irrelevant to the topic, after all, since there is no point talking about them. And i disagree completely - God has been a hot button topic for philosophy for thousands of years. Millions of pages of classical literature is chock-full of evidence that says otherwise.

:roll:
That's not my argument. Care to re-read my post again?

This is a particular type of God you are describing. Why should yours be better than anyone else's God? Since every believer of a particular deity is atheistic to all the other gods, i take that single final step further.

Who said anything about a "Cartesian?" Do you have a personal problem with Cartesians? They rob you your lunch money back in elementary school or what?


Is that your medical opinion? Whether you are capable of making correct judgments of other people's psychological states, why don't you try and addressing what i wrote, instead of all this tired song-and-dance of agitprop? Do you have anything relevant to my analogy of a "perfect world?"

LOL, lets go back to high school logic class and look at your argument again.

Let P = a perfect creator
Let Q = a perfect creation

If P -> Q

That is your argument.

Now, you implied the universe is not perfect, therefore ~Q

~Q -> ~P

Your argument merely stated that the creator is not perfect. You did not reject the existence of a God of some sort. Try again.
By the way, if you are going to assume that I am confunded by your vocabulary, that is quite immature.

 

[The Heretic]

LOL, lets go back to high school logic class and look at your argument again.
Let P = a perfect creator
Let Q = a perfect creation
If P -> Q
That is your argument.

In plain english, this means i am saying the following:
"If there is a perfect creator, then there is a perfect creation."

That's not a correct interpretation because the definition of a creator means he creates something. That is a tautology, not an if/then proposition. A tautology does not introduce new information, but only restate the definition of the subject with different words.

For example if i was talking about a bachelor, i would by definition be talking about his unmarried status.

However, if i were to correctly reduce my argument to logical format, i would keep the propositions to make it intelligible, not just stick nouns in there and pretend i'm doing logic, or your type of high school logic. Say, where did you go to high school anyway?

I would use predicate calculus instead of Aristotelian syllogisms, because we are talking about an individual, not a class of entities. And my argument is composed of categorical sentences. The first thing you do in logic is to figure out how to correctly identify the form of the sentence before you symbolize it.

Lower case letters indicate individuals while upper case letters denotes predicates.

Let p = the individual "perfect creator"
Let C = "to create a perfect world"

Cp denotes the assertion "The perfect creator created a perfect world."

We can apply the predicate C to any individual. If k = kalboy, then Ck would assert, falsely, that Kalboy created a perfect world.

The letter ∃ means "there exists.."
Let P be a predicate "is a perfect creator."
∃x (Px) = "There exists a perfect creator."
Px = "x is a perfect creator"

A particular affirmative reads as:
∃x (Px -> Cx)
"For all x, if x is a perfect creator, then x will create a perfect world"

Now, you implied the universe is not perfect, therefore ~Q

~Q -> ~P

Cute. Apparently you have forgotten how to make these propositions into an argument, like the following format:

P -> Q
~Q
_____
~P

Proven by rule of MTT

That would work a hella lot better, even if your method of slapping letters on nouns is half-baked in the first place.

Your argument merely stated that the creator is not perfect.

Nope. I did no such thing. Rather i left that obvious inference up to the reader to draw for him or herself.

You did not reject the existence of a God of some sort. Try again.

Wrong. A great number of monotheistic religions posit a belief in a perfect deity. My argument is directed against that particular type of God - the omnimax one with all the attributes of perfection (omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and so on).

Thus, my argument questions the possibility of such an omnimax God of existing, given the imperfect world. For your information, i'm well versed in the traditional apologetics (Free Will Defense, Unknown Purpose Defense, etc).

By the way, if you are going to assume that I am confunded by your vocabulary, that is quite immature.

You're projecting your insecurity complex again. I don't assume anything of the sort. I only have your actions to go on. If you are too lazy to look up what the word 'holistic' means, then you are not taking this seriously.

You keep ducking all those other points i raised, which makes you a cowardly debator. Why?

 

[kalboy]

The letter ∃ means "there exists.."
Let P be a predicate "is a perfect creator."
∃x (Px) = "There exists a perfect creator."
Px = "x is a perfect creator"

A particular affirmative reads as:
∃x (Px -> Cx)
"For all x, if x is a perfect creator, then x will create a perfect world"

predicate calculus my ass.


∀x (Px -> Cx)
this is the correct axiom for the above arguement. :Owned:

I know exactly what holistic stands for, you don’t need to tell me to go and check the dictionary. In contrary, I suggest you go look up the relationship between Cartesian and holistic to further grasp my argument.

 

[knightwolf68]

well.... I just decide to share some story with all of u... When i was young adult and I got into HUGE Serious Trouble with Law and they put me in jail. so I saw the bible next to the bed .. i was ingore it for awhile somehow i decide to pray and ask for the answer then i decide to open the bible out of blue as pick the pages and start read and I was dumbfound that there is answer for me that match myself into the situations ... but let me step back few more step ... when i enter the court and my lawyer told me that my cases isn't look good at all because it is very very serious sitautions . and i will have to face the sentences then back to that scenes that i just told u about bible ... so i did read thru the bible. then next day I got another :jaws: that they just dismissed my cases and throw out ... and that life just change me big times and straight my ass up and i haven't been trouble with law for heck long times .... so I believe that Bible is very powerful impact my lifestyles..

 

[The Heretic]

predicate calculus my ass.

∀x (Px -> Cx)
this is the correct axiom for the above arguement. :Owned:

I know exactly what holistic stands for, you don’t need to tell me to go and check the dictionary. In contrary, I suggest you go look up the relationship between Cartesian and holistic to further grasp my argument.

I am not sorry to say you're wrong again. The form ∀x is universal, not existential. The proposition does not refer to a class of entities, but a singular one. But don't let that stop you from such premature celebrations.

As for holistic, did you lie earlier?
You wrote: I have no clue what you mean by seeing things from a holistic approach.

Now you claim you know what "holistic" stands for. I can't tell whether you are speaking from both sides of your mouth or not.

Plus i didn't even know you had an argument in the first place, other than a bunch of incoherent agitprop that sounded more like canned party lines of apologetics than anything.

Which is it?
Is Kalboy God's blunder or God Kalboy's blunder?

 

[kalboy]

I am not sorry to say you're wrong again. The form ∀x is universal, not existential. The proposition does not refer to a class of entities, but a singular one. But don't let that stop you from such premature celebrations.

As for holistic, did you lie earlier?
You wrote: I have no clue what you mean by seeing things from a holistic approach.

Now you claim you know what "holistic" stands for. I can't tell whether you are speaking from both sides of your mouth or not.

Plus i didn't even know you had an argument in the first place, other than a bunch of incoherent agitprop that sounded more like canned party lines of apologetics than anything.

Which is it?
Is Kalboy God's blunder or God Kalboy's blunder?

dude, where did you learn your logic from? there is no way that
∃x (Px -> Cx)
can be translated into
For all x, if x is a perfect creator, then x will create a perfect world.

you are suppose to say:
There exists some X, for that if x is perfect creator, then x will create a perfect world.

By the way, you discredit your argument by bring up holism. You know that right?

 

[The Heretic]

my my

dude, where did you learn your logic from? there is no way that
∃x (Px -> Cx)
can be translated into
For all x, if x is a perfect creator, then x will create a perfect world.
you are suppose to say:
There exists some X, for that if x is perfect creator, then x will create a perfect world.

You're correct - i should have written "there exists.." since i did define it before the blooper. Any other persnickety comments you have up your sleeve?

By the way, you discredit your argument by bring up holism. You know that right?

How? Explain yourself, because argument by loud assertions hardly impress. I only wrote that i am capable of thinking in holistic context, not that i was limited to a "bottoms-up" perspective. It hardly follows that this capability "discredit" my argument.

 

[kalboy]

You're correct - i should have written "there exists.." since i did define it before the blooper. Any other persnickety comments you have up your sleeve?



How? Explain yourself, because argument by loud assertions hardly impress. I only wrote that i am capable of thinking in holistic context, not that i was limited to a "bottoms-up" perspective. It hardly follows that this capability "discredit" my argument.

ok never mind. good debate.

 

[Cheri]

I believe in God all the way *smiling*

 

[Angel]

Yes, I believe in God with all my heart and soul....

 

[weekend]

I believe in god. They love me.

 

[Ginette]

I've read all the posts, and would like to respond to the things that have been said.
Those who seek God are wise enough to care about the big things in life and courageous enough to look for the answers.
The Bible is considered the most remarkable book the world has ever seen.
There are many reasons to believe that the Bible is the Truth.
Dr. Hugh Ross, a world-renowned astrohysicist, says that approximately 2000 of the 2500 prophecies which appear in the Bible has be fulfilled to the letter with no errors (the remaining 500 concern events which have not yet occurred)

The Bible is God's personal message to each one of us, it is the ultimate guide to life. It gives us direction, shows us right and wrong, and shows us the truth about ourselves.
You don't need to SEE God to believe in him. He reveals himself in other ways, through his creation, through mankind, through His Son Jesus Christ and through His Holy Spirit.

I can see how it might be possible
for man to look down upon earth and
be an atheist, but I cannot conceive
how he can look up into the heavens
and say there is no God
--Abraham Lincoln,
sixteenth American president

God is infinite, he is without beginning or end.
God doesn't require us to prove his existence, or to be intellectually convinced.The only step God does require is faith. He wants us to choose to believe in Him with our will.
The Bible talks about the fear of the Lord, such references usually mean "reverence" and "respect"

The Bible makes it clear that there's only one way for man to reach the one God. In fact, God is intolerant toward other religions while remaining tolerant toward those who adhere to those beliefs.

After his exile from Heaven, Lucifer was called Satan. Satan and the fallen angels occupy the realm of earth. He and his "demons" are dedicated to Attacking Christians, Attempting to prevent people from learning about God's plan of Salvation, Promoting false religions, tempting Christians to sin, Inflicting disease and accusing the righteous.

What about Dinosaurs? There is lots of evidence. The Fossil records for the huge reptiles. Read Genesis, The big amphibious creatures ( the Bible term "Leviathan" may describe them") were created on Day five, and the Dinosaurs themselves were created on day six- the same day as Adam and Eve.
Christainity sets itself apart from other religions, not only because of its message, but because of its Messenger- Jesus Christ. The founder of Christianity made it clear that you can't call yourself a Christian, if you reject the Teacher as God.
Jesus is God in human form, He rose from the dead, He invites his followers into an experience that is beyond worship, one that includes daily friendship as well. These three distinctives about Jesus Christ set Christianity apart from all other Religions.

People have false ideas about how a person can be "Saved"
You are not saved by doing good (As far as God is concerned, compared to his righteousness, any good deed that we can do ourselves is worthless.)

You are not saved by being Religious Jesus taught that a person's relationship with God brings salvation, not his observance of rituals(Churches).

You are not saved by being an American Jesus Christ is available equally to all mankind.

You are not saved just because your parents are ChristiansThe decision to accept or reject Christ is an individual one.

You are not saved because you intellectually understand and agree that Jesus is God and is the means of salvation Even Satan and his demons know that Jesus is God and that He is the only means of salvation.

According to the Bible, there's only one way of salvation: faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself said :

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)

For those of you who don't follow the Christian path, please find it in your heart to be patient with us. Part of the process of maturing in Christianity is an increasing desire to share the good news of salvation with those who are not believers. Some Christians love to talk to other people about God, it is part of the learning process.

 

[kuifje75]

Those who seek God are wise enough to care about the big things in life and courageous enough to look for the answers.

So, are you implying that these who not believe in God do not care about the big things in life and courageous enough to look for the answers? I do not agree with this at all, after all, just because someone is not a Christian does not mean they're going to hell or being cowards. I find this to be a little offensive in thinking.

 

[VamPyroX]

Dr. Hugh Ross, a world-renowned astrohysicist, says that approximately 2000 of the 2500 prophecies which appear in the Bible has be fulfilled to the letter with no errors (the remaining 500 concern events which have not yet occurred)

2000 out of 2500 were fulfilled? I find that hard to believe. I think the Bible is as vague as the book of Nostrodamus. Where can I find a list of these so-called fulfille prophecies?

What about Dinosaurs? There is lots of evidence. The Fossil records for the huge reptiles. Read Genesis, The big amphibious creatures ( the Bible term "Leviathan" may describe them") were created on Day five, and the Dinosaurs themselves were created on day six- the same day as Adam and Eve.

If dinosaurs were created at the same time as Adam and Eve, why do scientists find proof that these dinosaurs were millions of years old? If you're going to say that Earth-time was longer in the past (for instance, 1 year equals 100 years), then that means... those characters listed in the Bible to be 100 years old are actually 10,000 years old? If that's the case, what the hell happened to us? How the hell can the average 10,000 year old lifespan change to 100 years old today?

 

[Angel]

Those who seek God are wise enough to care about the big things in life and courageous enough to look for the answers.

What do you meant by this?....Please explain.....

 

[gnarlydorkette]

A Book by Elaine Pagels should settle this issue!

Hmm... anybody have read the book, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" by Elaine Pagels????

It has really.... shown me a new light about the whole ... concept of religions and their relationship with the God and the astonishing process of many religions being twisted around by the mortals.

This just gave me more reasons to challenge the religion...
It includes Christian and Jewish beliefs.. I haven't completed the book but I suggest many of you to read it because it is an actual historical analysis on the Bible and the timeline leading up to the era of churchs and so on.

If everybody has read this book, there would be no church- followers would persist because it is *their* beliefs but the church... bunch of hocus pocus!

[engrossing herself in the book]
This would settle the issue down but of course there are always the flamers to cry out against the book because it was written by a woman [blah blah]

lemme excerpt a paragraph that I feel strongly and probably will use to question the Christian religion:

Jesus must have astonished them even more by agreeing that, yes, it is better not to marry, and praisng "those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:12). Luke says that Jesus even praised barren women: "Blessed are ... the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck" (Luke 23:29), implying that the time was coming when the people who did not have children would be the lucky ones. ... In another passage, Luke has Jesus link marriage with death, and celibacy with eternal life.

Jesus doesn't believe in loving yoru family. You should love Jesus MORE than your family, your parents, your siblings, your spouse... if You love them more than Jesus then you are NOT worthwhile to go with the Kingdom of the HEaven. That is what it said in the next passage.

I was shocked because I have been thinking- so ALL of those married Christians have violated their "holy" bond with their Jesus H Christ and the God because the women have been intercoursed by their husband.
Jesus did believe in marriage but he also believed that sex SHOULD NOT exist in marriage.

There are actual documents saying that Jesus did say that.
So... [shrug] I just think everybody read this book because it has exposed the TRUTH behind the bible. "And The Truth Shall Set Us Free!".... or something like that..

 

[illustrator]

If dinosaurs were created at the same time as Adam and Eve, why do scientists find proof that these dinosaurs were millions of years old? If you're going to say that Earth-time was longer in the past (for instance, 1 year equals 100 years), then that means... those characters listed in the Bible to be 100 years old are actually 10,000 years old? If that's the case, what the hell happened to us? How the hell can the average 10,000 year old lifespan change to 100 years old today?

Scientists have no 100% proof that dinosurs were millions of years old. How can you believe in scientists when they don't actually see thing happen to dinosurs?

The reality, it's too difficult to tell how old it is when the thing are very fragment. I do like to see cool dinosaurs at the musem but, that thing I hardly to believe either it's million years old or thousand.

Who start to make theory that dinosaurs exist in millions? From early 1900s, scientists thought that lead to new mordern scientists to follow from past.