So what really happened 2000 years ago?

[gambling_cruiser]

Like I said earlier. For me personally, this is not about whether God exists, I already know God is factual because of a miracle of communication in 1986. There is no possible way for me not to be saddened at the rejection of truth
that will result in eternal consequences for those who do not know any better, but SHOULD at least know that there is indeed a Creator.

You may be clever with polemics, but to not know God is to be left with
true nothingness. When the sun burns out this world will disappear.

You, however, will still be accountable. Everything in life should have
taught you by now that there are consequences for your actions.

You never truly get away with anything...

you just postpone your reckoning and fool yourself into believing all is well.

Where there are sound assumptions based on deduction and observation,
there are fundamental realities on which to build an understanding of truth.

You must ultimately choose between worshipping materialistic matter

OR worship the One Who made the materialistic matter. He is the fundamental reality you are accountable to. Not me.

~Michael

So your proof of god is a miracle you experienced in 1986.
How is your miracle different than the delusions of the mentally ill?
How can you know that you had a communication with god and not an illusion?
IMO all subjective proofs are worth nothing.
And you base your life on nothing more than fairy tales and illusions.

 

[Breckmin]

The True Logical Fallacy!

I don't expect that, you're right.

It is not a wise expectation, to have ever expected something that wouldn't take place. For instance, I never truly expected a miracle, even though I
begged for it. Either way, it wouldn't have made me disbelieve in God, if my
prayer was not answered the way in which I thought it was supposed to be.

And those promises were not from God, but they were misunderstandings
about the will of God.

There is no god. Logically impossible, as I've said.

The problem with this statement is that it is in and of its self a logical
fallacy. To claim that there is no God, is to cosmically claim omniscience
about the universe.
Let me put it to you this way, suppose that somewhere in the galaxy or
galaxies there was absolute evidence that would convince you and prove
to you that there was indeed a Creator? Suppose you were able to
observe the glorified body of Jesus building a beautiful city of gold (New
Jerusalem) somewhere in outer or quantum space. The fact is, unless
you are omnipresent and omniscient as GOD is, you can not claim that
God does not exist. You have to be agnostic, OR "atheistic" as a
starting point which is "without a belief in God or gods." Your claim
above "There is no God. He is logically impossible." Is actually a claim
of strong atheism which is a logical fallacy. It is different from "without
belief in God or gods" because it is "the belief in no God or gods."

This is easily shown to be a logical fallacy with respect to omniscience
and omnipresence in the universe. You can not make the claim that
there is no Creator unless you are omniscient.

I would be, however, interested in "why" you believe that God is
somehow "logically impossible." Which argument do you use to
make this claim?
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Evil Spirits also confirm God's Existence

So your proof of god is a miracle you experienced in 1986.

No. I base my proof for God on the Law of Biogenesis and the Information
that we see present in RNA and DNA. What happened in 1986 confirms
the Christian faith and helped me get through an attack from evil invisible
spirits that you do not believe in, but it CONFIRMED God's absolute existence,
it was not the proof for it because I already knew God existed.

It was for me personally, so it is irrelevant for convincing others.

Even demonic spirits confirm God's existence. This is what you do not under-stand. Devil worshippers and the occult actually indirectly confirm Christianity
by the fact that they are worshipping an evil which gives them power and a
hatred "of" Christianity. Just as the Jews called Jesus a bastard, they confirmed His historical existence. It is often opposing forces which can
provide evidence of an existence.

So when I believed it was impossible for me to be demonically possessed, I
was open to such attack because of lack of knowledge. When such an
event happens to you (not quite like Linda Blair in the exorcist, but close),
it ALSO confirms to you the existence of God.

Now you can claim that all these experiences are delusional.

But it really begs the question as to what is happening. It is sort of like
cosmologists who point to evil as evidence for good. The real question
however is "what is the STANDARD for good based on?" What moral
law can be justified without an objective authority?

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

No philosophical inconsistencies NOR scientific facts contradict!

The two part control mechanism makes certain that facts which contradict cherished beliefs

What "facts" that are observable are these?

Interesting assertion, but it is general and doesn't deal with anything specific
so therefore it could be construed as ad hominem...

or a clever little word play that was meant as a joke.

Either way, there are no facts that contradict or I would simply change
what I believe.

Since God is factual, all statements regarding a dissent from theism are
superfluous. But let's look at the facts. Please.

Michael

 

[slingblade]

I would be, however, interested in "why" you believe that God is
somehow "logically impossible." Which argument do you use to
make this claim?
~Michael

Not in the singular, I'm afraid. There are several arguments.

First, which god? There are so many, aren't there, each claiming to be the real one, each with its own properties...

Next, the contradictory nature of the claims about certain gods. A single entity cannot at one and the same time be omnscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Then there's the anti-prime-cause argument. If everything has a cause, and if by this we know the universe has a cause--a creator--then what or who created the creator? If there's another, bigger god that created the creator of the universe, shouldn't we be hearing a bit about that one instead of the junior apprentice? If there is no creator for the creator, then a creator cannot exist, by the very logic used to form the argument in the first place: everything has a cause. A creator god would certainly count as part of everything, so where is the creator's creator?

The argument that time cannot be created; a logical impossibility. Time is infinite. Our measuring of it, in arbitrary increments, is artificially imposed, and it's pretty much all we have to use to discuss it. So tell me, if god created time, creation implying the bringing into existence a thing which was not in existence before, then....whence the "before?" If time did not exist in one moment, but in another moment does exist, whence the moments? "Before" is a moment in time, yet it cannot be, because time did not exist until god created it, you see the conundrum? Time cannot be created, thus, at the very least, a god who created everything cannot exist.

One that's dear to my heart: the fact that nothing claimed about the god I was taught to believe in turned out to be so. The contradictory nature of the bible...how can a perfect god turn out such an imperfect product as the Bible? Oh, that's right, you did mention that whole free will of man thing. And about that, are you sure it exists, as well?

And about that, why can't an all-powerful and perfect god devise a way to keep his words intact, unchanged, untampered with? Remember, he's a GOD, so he ought to be able to do things we think must be impossible, if he's perfect and all-powerful. But he couldn't come up with a way to keep people mucking up his book, being constrained by his own rules regarding free will (which we are still questioning, remember), and so god is bound by god and is not all-powerful.

And what's the point of giving his word if we can just alter it at will, free will? How do you or I have any way of knowing that the whole thing hasn't been chucked out long ago and replaced by a completely different text? By several hands? So that it does not form a seamless whole one might expect of perfect, all-powerful god...I mean, it might all be made up, and you admit that god is powerless to prevent it.

That's but a sampling. Also include the Dragon in My Garage argument, Russel's Teapot argument, and a smattering of others I've yet to mention.

Are you beginning to see? No, of course not. You're not here to see. You're here to bring us the good news!

Had it, thanks. Turned out to be all bad and not news. Funny, that.

 

[slingblade]

Since God is factual, l

Begging the damned question again, boy, aren't you absorbing ANY of this?

Show us your facts, then. Now.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

No. I base my proof for God on the Law of Biogenesis and the Information
that we see present in RNA and DNA. What happened in 1986 confirms
the Christian faith and helped me get through an attack from evil invisible
spirits that you do not believe in, but it CONFIRMED God's absolute existence,
it was not the proof for it because I already knew God existed.

It was for me personally, so it is irrelevant for convincing others.

Even demonic spirits confirm God's existence. This is what you do not under-stand. Devil worshippers and the occult actually indirectly confirm Christianity
by the fact that they are worshipping an evil which gives them power and a
hatred "of" Christianity. Just as the Jews called Jesus a bastard, they confirmed His historical existence. It is often opposing forces which can
provide evidence of an existence.

So when I believed it was impossible for me to be demonically possessed, I
was open to such attack because of lack of knowledge. When such an
event happens to you (not quite like Linda Blair in the exorcist, but close),
it ALSO confirms to you the existence of God.

Now you can claim that all these experiences are delusional.

But it really begs the question as to what is happening. It is sort of like
cosmologists who point to evil as evidence for good. The real question
however is "what is the STANDARD for good based on?" What moral
law can be justified without an objective authority?

~Michael

1. So you have not unterstood evolution.
2. Believing in demonic posession means probably you didn't seek help from mental health professionals or at least only from incompetent people.
3. Which cosmologist give a rats ass about the good/evil problem and if he does it's outside his field of competence.
4. Moral is a social construct, developed evoulutionary and depends on society and cirumstances.
5. Repeating nonsense like "God is fact" doesn't make it true.
6. Show us something supernatural and win a million

 

[DrBaltar]

Enough of this nonsense

There was a good conversation going before and now this thread has been hijacked for over 2 pages arguing with someone who does not accept skepticism in a skepticism forum. My question was a question posed to atheists. Can we please get back to the thread's topic?

ETA: Perhaps the thread should be split at around post #77 so that the education of Breckmin can continue elsewhere?

Thanks.

 

[bokonon]

Sorry about that. I'm not that interested in what happened 2000 years ago with regard to the birth of Jesus, but since I participated in the hijack, I'll give it a shot.

To other atheists out there, my question is about the pseudo-history told in the bible about Jesus. What do you think actually happened? Why did Jesus believe he was God's illegitimate son, and why did people believe him? What were the motives of the people who recorded the events of Jesus' life?

I'm not sure Jesus thought he was God's illegitimate son. I have no idea which (if any) of the words attributed to him were actually spoken by him. The "Son of God" idea seems likely to have been an invention of the followers who were seeking to differentiate their brand from the multitude of others being peddled at the time.

In my mind, this is how I see it happening, and this is all just guesses based on pieces I've heard and trying to reconcile my belief that there is no God with the fact that something happened that got people all excited back then. Possibilities I can think of are that the three astrologically-minded men noted the appearance of the star of Bethlehem (which I believe was attributed somewhere to the conjunction of Venus, Jupiter and the star Rigel). They followed it until they found Bethlehem and happened upon Mary who was giving birth. Mary perhaps had an affair and became impregnated, so she was willing to go along with "God did it" to appease her husband.

I doubt that the "Star of Bethlehem" is anything more than a complete invention. Even if there was a conjunction of Venus, Jupiter, and Rigel, that light, like all celestial lights, would rise in the east, travel across the sky, and set in the west. The idea that you could "follow" such a beacon to a city, let alone to a manger, strikes me as absurd.

The "virgin birth" also seems likely to have been something fabricated by later writers, rather than something claimed by Jesus' mother herself.

This kind of beginning planted the seed in Jesus' mind that there was something special about himself. So he grew up believing God was his daddy and formed a connection with his imaginary friend. Then there was this other crackpot who's probably been hanging around in the desert too long who hooked up with Jesus. He thought Jesus was groovy and was impressed with Jesus' birth story as well, so he started preaching to others about him. Jesus began to truly believe he was the bastard son of God and also started preaching. Or something...

I think Jesus was probably a very religious person, probably from childhood. I think it's debatable whether he thought he was the "son of God" rather than simply a very talented preacher spreading the news about God as he saw it.

But what about these miracles like turning water into wine, healing people, walking on water? Are these stories people made up about him? Was he a scam artist? A magician? Were these stories made up later?

I suspect some were made up, and some were stunts designed to fool people and give his sermons impact.

Who's this Mary Magdalene chick? If she was such a follower of Jesus, or maybe even his wife, and was there for the execution, why didn't she recognize Jesus at first after the 'resurrection'? That's suspicious.

The whole resurrection story is dubious. I suspect there was some effort at subterfuge by some group of followers, which couldn't be maintained long-term, so the "ascended into heaven" story was invented to explain why the "resurrected" man wasn't still preaching to the multitudes.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Question everything. ~Michael

Thanks Breck. There are days when I log on just to monitor for irony.
There is a certain contingent that seems to consistently provide it.
Rating: 7.4

ETA: Perhaps the thread should be split at around post #77 so that the education of Breckmin can continue elsewhere?

A noble sentiment, though considering the target.........the discussion would probably be still born right out of the gate.

 

[Hokulele]

I'm not sure Jesus thought he was God's illegitimate son. I have no idea which (if any) of the words attributed to him were actually spoken by him. The "Son of God" idea seems likely to have been an invention of the followers who were seeking to differentiate their brand from the multitude of others being peddled at the time.

This is probably the most contentious of the ideas in the OP. If you read the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) it is always someone else who refers to Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus usually refers to himself as the Son of Man. Once you get into Acts and the Epistles, it seems to be assumed that Jesus is the Son of God, even though he never specifically claimed that.

 

[Breckmin]

Not interested in the consistency of assumptions within the closed belief of Christia

There was a good conversation going before and now this thread has been hijacked for over 2 pages arguing with someone who does not accept skepticism in a skepticism forum. My question was a question posed to atheists. Can we please get back to the thread's topic?

ETA: Perhaps the thread should be split at around post #77 so that the education of Breckmin can continue elsewhere?

Thanks.

Let me just respond to some nonsense assertions about God's impossibility
and then I will stop posting at your request.

For the record, I was not aware this forum was for skeptics only. I was
under the assumption it was an open forum that would field ALL truth and
not censor anything. Your question about what happened 2000 years ago
appears to not want to examine the evidence in support of the Christian
faith. Errors in the "bible" is in no way a valid reason for rejecting Christianity.
If you want to impose technicality rather than practicality, you will surely
miss the message because of inexactisms. That is why I continue to say
"question everything." Because I do not see people here questioning based
on uniform and repeated experience (information needs a source, the code
needs a code maker, the message needs an author) and that life itself is
clearly a miracle. Very simple. Even a child can see it, because they are
not blinded by invalid assumptions based on circular reasoning (wrong definition for science) and thousands of inductions (inductions that
deceived me into once becoming a theistic evolutionist).

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

One at a time

First, which god? There are so many, aren't there, each claiming to be the real one, each with its own properties...

Next, the contradictory nature of the claims about certain gods. A single entity cannot at one and the same time be omnscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Even if you didn't read Philo Judeas of Alexandria and his chapter on
creation, you should still know what the ancient Hebrews believed and
how it separated them from all of the pagan finite gods.

The God of Abraham, the God of the Hebrews was an everlasting God from
before the beginning, so His Personal Infinite Existence is beyond time and
space which by definition makes Him both omnipresent and omniscient.

What you do not understand is how God exists at the point is infinitely small
as well as infinite beyond the galaxy and the finite expansion of the universe
which is expanding into infinite space. A finite being can not be omnipotent,
omnipresent, and omniscient (and thank you, you have just invalidated all of
the pagan gods), but an Infinite God Who exists beyond the dimensions of
mere time and space would by definition have such capability.

Something I would love to discuss further and how it relates to infinite inner
space and information.
~Michael

 

[Mister Agenda]

Re: Chimpanzees
Debating endogenous retroviruses (ERV's) or telomere to telomere fusion to form human
chromosome 2 is futile for the creationism vs universal common descent argument (notice
I did not say 'evolution') because creationists expect to find even MORE similarities
between apes and humans because of biological morphology. We use the same data
to demonstrate the order in creation.

Pointing out similarities does not equal relatedness. The same would be true for
endosymbiont theory. Since the creationist believes they are observing God's Trademark
in creation, they expect the same uniform processes and consistency in the genetics
of creatures or "prokaryotes" who look similar. But commonalities do not always equal relatedness. Seeing this clearly is one of the first steps in dissent from the deception.
~Michael

So God is parsimonious with genes? Too much trouble to make a new chromosome, so just fuse a couple of the ones used on chimps? But if we point out an exception to similar-looking and functioning species being genetically similar (dingos and thylacines, for instance), it doesn't count against the idea that similar-looking genes are created for similar-looking species. Convenient, that.

Too bad God wasn't more creative, genetics would have disproved evolution instead of supporting it, if God had taken the trouble to work up a new genetic code for each species created, or even just us. Now THAT would have been a Trademark!

BTW, creationists would have been much more impressive in their biological morphology hypothesis if they 'expected' so much identical genetic information before it was found to be the case that human and ape genes are so similar...like the theory of evolution did.

 

[bokonon]

The God of Abraham, the God of the Hebrews was an everlasting God from before the beginning, so His Personal Infinite Existence is beyond time and space which by definition makes Him both omnipresent and omniscient.

I don't see how it would necessarily confer omniscience. I am present in my body, but I am not aware of much that goes on even when "I" am doing it - oxygenating, pumping and filtering blood, digesting food, etc. Even if you "define" god to be everywhere and everywhen, it doesn't follow that he would have to be omniscient simply by virtue of being omnipresent.

A finite being can not be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (and thank you, you have just invalidated all of the pagan gods), but an Infinite God Who exists beyond the dimensions of mere time and space would by definition have such capability.

No again. While a hypothetical 3-O god would be superior to a finite being, such superiority remains hypothetical until said infinite being can be shown to exist. Inventing a new imaginary being doesn't invalidate pagan gods any more than imagining unicorns would invalidate horses. The pagan gods are invalidated by their own imaginary status.

 

[bokonon]

But if we point out an exception to similar-looking and functioning species being genetically similar (dingos and thylacines, for instance), it doesn't count against the idea that similar-looking genes are created for similar-looking species. Convenient, that.

I suppose God is inventing new genetic sequences for each new cockroach that's born, since "code requires a programmer" and the fact that they resemble the cockroaches which laid the eggs from which they hatched can't be taken as evidence of relatedness. It's amazing the blinders that true believers are willing to wear to help them morph the whole of reality to match their narrow dogmatic vision.

Too bad God wasn't more creative, genetics would have disproved evolution instead of supporting it, if God had taken the trouble to work up a new genetic code for each species created, or even just us. Now THAT would have been a Trademark!

Or less creative. How about just letting everyone materialize as full-blown adults, complete with the experience of the disco-decade miracle that convinced Breckmin he was talking with God. What's the point of having Dad squeeze us in so Mom can squeeze us out, misleading us as regards our true divine origins? A pox on all dissembling deities!

 

[Mister Agenda]

Let me just respond to some nonsense assertions about God's impossibility
and then I will stop posting at your request.

For the record, I was not aware this forum was for skeptics only. I was
under the assumption it was an open forum that would field ALL truth and
not censor anything. Your question about what happened 2000 years ago
appears to not want to examine the evidence in support of the Christian
faith. Errors in the "bible" is in no way a valid reason for rejecting Christianity.
If you want to impose technicality rather than practicality, you will surely
miss the message because of inexactisms. That is why I continue to say
"question everything." Because I do not see people here questioning based
on uniform and repeated experience (information needs a source, the code
needs a code maker, the message needs an author) and that life itself is
clearly a miracle. Very simple. Even a child can see it, because they are
not blinded by invalid assumptions based on circular reasoning (wrong definition for science) and thousands of inductions (inductions that
deceived me into once becoming a theistic evolutionist).

~Michael

Beckmin, you're quite welcome in the forum (welcome!), but the OP of this thread specifically asked for input from atheists. You're running a sort of sideshow. You seem to have a lot of material, do you have enough posts to start your own thread yet? If not, I recommend anything started by Yrreg or DOC.

 

[Breckmin]

1 at a time

Then there's the anti-prime-cause argument. If everything has a cause, and if by this we know the universe has a cause--a creator--then what or who created the creator? If there's another, bigger god that created the creator of the universe, shouldn't we be hearing a bit about that one instead of the junior apprentice? If there is no creator for the creator, then a creator cannot exist, by the very logic used to form the argument in the first place: everything has a cause. A creator god would certainly count as part of everything, so where is the creator's creator?

The first statement fails, so the rest of it fails also.

Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause. God by very definition is the
uncaused cause of all things. Asserting His "impossibility" by claiming He
had to have a cause is not only puerile in its philosophical construction, it
fails to address causation for our existence. (IOW, taken to its logical
ends, nothing could exist because "every"thing" needs a cause).

It is philosophically flawed at its first assertion. Now let's look at the
ridiculous reasoning. <<If there's another, bigger god that created the creator of the universe,>> How can you have a bigger God than an
Infinite Creator? There is nothing bigger than infinity.

BTW, the Kalam Argument for causation (which is not considered sine
qua non in Christian philosophy) clearly states that it is only what "begins"
to exist that has a cause, NOT everything has a cause. SO the argument
you are asserting is clearly incongruous.

<<If there is no creator for the creator, then a creator cannot exist, by the very logic used to form the argument in the first place: everything has a cause.>>

Since you misquoted the original argument, it is not surprising that you came
to a false conclusion. It is sort of like the atheist who wrongfully argues that
if "intelligence" requires a source (like we see in RNA/DNA), then God requires
a source. But clearly, God is not just "intelligence" or "information." God is
not a result, He is the uncaused cause. IOW, God is not the result of design
or the result of a Creation, just has He is not limited to "information" or
"intelligence" (Love, Power, etc).

These types of arguments clearly "miss" that if God's Infinite Personal Existence is outside the dimensions of time and space then He is not limited
to finite experience. He clearly had no beginning because He is not bound
by time. This is what is missed by the opposing argument. It is not "everything has a cause" it is "anything that begins to exist (finite) has
a cause." The rebuttal missed the first premise.
~Michael

 

[Mister Agenda]

One of the things I like about the God concept is how it is continually updated to evade new arguments. I admire the theist who will define what he or she means by God and stick to it, but all the ones I've met have become atheists or learned to become content in their faith rather than try to prop it up with logic.

I assert that the universe did not begin to exist, it merely changed conditions from whatever it was before the Big Bang.

 

[bokonon]

This is probably the most contentious of the ideas in the OP. If you read the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) it is always someone else who refers to Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus usually refers to himself as the Son of Man.

Maybe he was trying to put the kibosh on all that "virgin birth" nonsense. I'm a son of a man, but I don't go around calling myself that.

Once you get into Acts and the Epistles, it seems to be assumed that Jesus is the Son of God, even though he never specifically claimed that.

After he's dead and gone, and can no longer correct the people who insist he must be more than he is...