The real reason I became an atheist is because I love porn. When I belonged to a church, the guilt I felt was overwhelming. I decided I would do all I could to separate myself from the guilt and the church, so I choose atheism and I now watch porn all day long guilt free.

Now that really is something a typical Christian would believe that we choose to be atheists because we didn't want to obey the laws of God.

No seriously like you said JG, I was in search of the TRUTH, and when everything was laid out on the table and I took a real objective look at both sides, there wasn't even much thinking to do. Religion doesn't have a leg on which to stand once you start reading a bit of science and how everything in the world could be accomplished without any God let alone the Christian God.

In the end we don't choose our beliefs, our beliefs choose us.

Bill:

"Religion doesn't have a leg on which to stand once you start reading a bit of science and how everything in the world could be accomplished without any God let alone the Christian God."

OK, so science has explained how consciousness develops? How an organic being "awakes" and "becomes aware"? I am not talking about merely living: viruses and such live (although that in and of itself would be hard enough), but rather becoming a conscious individual unique being. Sure, saying that it evolved over billions and billions of years as a result of random mutations and natural selection would cover it (it would cover just about ANYTHING don't you admit?) but it leaves one wanting for specifics, details, or a how - to guide. So, I must have missed that edition of Scientific American. Or maybe it was in the New England Journal Of Medicine? But surely you have the link to it. Could you provide it to me? Or maybe you can give me a synopsis right now.

>>OK, so science has explained how consciousness develops?

No; not entirely - but is sure beats the answers provided by your mystic book of ignorance. At least science strives for those answers the best it can, as opposed to "God Did It!".

That was about the only part of your post that was worthy of any kind of response, really. The rest, well, just dripped so rich with sarcasm that I'm not going to waste my time. -Wes.

"healtheland".

Ummm.. What's wrong with the land by the way?? -Wes.

Ugh. Reminds me of Robin mark...

Hi, JG! I'm also a fan of The Demon-Haunted World. (And the invisible dragon in my garage says 'hi'.)

As for you, 'healtheland', I sense a pathological unwillingness to tolerate ambiguity and incomplete answers. Science is all about making educated guesses and then testing them so as to make better guesses. Scientists do not wave Erlenmeyer flasks in the air and chant the Periodic Table. Theories do not spring, Athena-like, full-grown from their foreheads.

They are willing to spend their entire lives looking for the second, third and nth right answers rather than resorting to the comforting stupidity of "I don't understand; therefore goddidit."

Here, then, is your synopsis: "We don't know. Yet. But if we give up now and let religion 'answer' for us, we may never know the truth."

Great post JG. You really hit the nail on the head. My christian friends can't seem to get this through their thick skulls. They don't really understand the concept of seeking the truth. They don't seek the truth, the shore up or celebrate what they already think is truth.

My friend says his christian truth can stand up to any analysis, but all he really does is stand in front of his "truth" and deflect any logic or reason that comes his way.

I try to explain that to seek truth you can't assume you already have it. You have to lay the facts and data before you and use the integrity of your own mind to see where they all point. But that is the real problem. They don't trust the integrity of their own minds. Bummer.

healtheland,

What are your own thoughts on consciousness, to be precise, human consciousness?

Please elaborate.

Healtheland: "OK, so science has explained how consciousness develops? How an organic being "awakes" and "becomes aware"?"

Healtheland, why don't you define "consciousness", as there are many different ways to do such, and I'll see if you are rational for me to give a rational reply to.

If you suggest the consciousness is equitable to a soul, or some supernatural/extra-terrestrial link via a worm-hole, then... I'll have to suggest that no answer I provide will suffice for you. I'm stuck here in this natural universe, and my answers would reflect such.

"I try to explain that to seek truth you can't assume you already have it. You have to lay the facts and data before you and use the integrity of your own mind to see where they all point. But that is the real problem. They don't trust the integrity of their own minds. Bummer."


We can't trust the integrity of our own minds? Human minds are limited, as is our language; however, God's nature is infinite beyond all space and time, all powerful, all knowing, and all present. Why trust ourselves when we as human can't even take care of ourselves. Look at our history. If we put our faith and trust in Christ, when we check out of here, there will be perfection waiting.

Boy, its been a while since ive been in here....Hi all!

Boy, its been a while since ive been in here

Have to break it to you Christobot, you haven't been missed. I see you're still sermonizing about you fantasy-daddy and the eternal picnic for zombies.

Hey JG,

Isn't it interesting how people are so eager to know what the THE one thing is that drove you to your senses? I find that I experience the same issue with everyone I meet and tell them that my position has changed. I'm no longer a Christian. In not having a one particular reason, it seems to throw them off any sort of argument that they may want to have. You're not angry, you're not mad and the answers to your prayers are irrelevant. You just plain woke up and put the pieces to the puzzle that your Christian beliefs are nothing different than the fables told to you in kindergarten. Way to. Enjoy your new-found freedom, I know I do.

TheCapetonian

JayBird's Joint (you chirped, my tit?) wrote: "...Human minds are limited, as is our language; however, God's nature is infinite beyond all space and time,.."

And, by the same token, so are its motives; if it has any (and why would it?). Think it has any active interest in your obeisance?

Further BS (that would be BirdSong) included: "...Why trust ourselves when we as human can't even take care of ourselves. Look at our history..."

Certain periods in history are more guilty of this than others; such as the Middle Ages, when religion reigned supreme over everything, including (especially)reason and honest inquiry.

I disagree with your take on history. Middle ages was the period of a perfect Christian order - regerdless whether God does exist, or not. Then, that order was disturbed by Jews conspiring to take over the power (read: wealth) from nobles. Their usury of 32% on brrowed money started Inquisition. Their French Revolution, bloody "Reign of Terror", chopped the heads of clergy and royals, kicked religion out of state and closed all churches, established centralized governemnt with its newly created ...Homeland Security and public Education Departments, and established the, so called, Cult of (Jewish) Reason with books we are imposed to read till today.
Jews repeated their takeover success in Russia known as Bolshevik Revolution. That has only inreased the amount of victims up to (official) 145 million of heads gone with sadistic tortures before ritual murders. Who do you think were "interrogation contractors" working on prisoners at Abu Ghraib? (By the way, why there is not a sigle Museum of the Communist Holocaust?) Under Jewish success now extended to US, we have nothing but their media, taxes, movies, institutes, gov officials, pseudo-science, and literature like the one of Carl Sagan's.
My question is: living and being "educated" in this Jewish world, is it possible to discuss God? What do we know about Him NOT coming from the Jewish Bible and/or other god-mocking sources? Do we have anything available of a non-Jewish point of view?

Bob wrote:
Middle ages was the period of a perfect Christian order - regerdless whether God does exist, or not. Then, that order was disturbed by Jews conspiring to take over the power (read: wealth) from nobles. Their usury of 32% on brrowed money started Inquisition
-------
Bob,

I will say right up front that I'm far from being an expert on the history of the Middle Ages.
I will also say that I'm not Jewish (as if that mattered anyway).

While your writing skills make it challenging to follow along with your intended points, I'm going to TRY and respond to you.

My first impression of you (and perhaps it's wrong) is that you are one who loves conspiracy theories?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least, for you tell us next that the Jewish Holocaust never happened? I say that, because something about the 'style' of your arguments here, very much remind me of the holocaust deniers style.
Would my guess be correct here?
Well, regardless of your view on that, lets move on.


REF:
The information in italics I use below, came from this site...
http://www.remember.org/History.root.classical.html


First let's see what it said about the Crusades:

Crusades
The Catholic Church launched a series of nine holy wars from 1096-1272. The purpose of these wars was to march to the Holy Land of Palestine and liberate it from Moslem "infidels." Along the way, the crusaders massacred all "infidels" in their path who refused to be baptized on the spot to Christianity. Thousands of Jews were massacred in Germany and France.

Now you makes the statement that the "Middle ages was the period of a perfect Christian order"
Not for nothing, but please tell us, 'perfect' for WHOM?
You surely can't believe that your xtian god told them to go kill of these 'infidels' who wouldn't convert to your xtian way of thinking?

Today we have Muslim sects who state, that we either convert to their religious beliefs, or have our heads chopped off. I wonder where on earth they might have gotten that idea, in the realm of history, hmmm.

Next you state:
"Then, that order was disturbed by Jews conspiring to take over the power (read: wealth) from nobles. Their usury of 32% on brrowed money started Inquisition"

I have no idea which part of history you are speaking about, where the Jews did all this conspiring, so please be more specific with your assertions?

A google search on the topic of this 32% interest on borrowed money, came up empty, so again you'll have to provide more information if you want to impress anyone with this knowledge.

Now as far as an Inquistion. Exactly WHICH Inquistion do you mean here?
Do you mean the one by the Catholic church in Rome or the Spanish one?
In any case, here is info on both for you and our readers here.
The Inquisition (Church of Rome)
The Inquisition was a tribunal established in the Middle Ages (13th Cent.) by the Catholic Church in Rome designed to suppress heresy. In 1233, Pope Gregory IX formally established the papal Inquisition and sent Dominican friars to South France and Northern Italy to conduct inquests. The Dominican order had set as one of their goals the conversion of Jews to Christianity. This aim, backed by the power of the Inquisition, brought on a wave of persecution.
Torture was not an approved method of extracting confessions of guilt from heretics, yet it was practiced and finally approved by Pope Innocent IV. The goal of the Inquisition was not the destruction of the heretics but rather their repentance. Burning at the stake was not common. The ordinary penalties were penance, fines and imprisonment. Penalties were often carried out by the local government, especially the death penalty. Because the fines extracted and the property of the accused were turned over to the local government which often returned a portion to the Church, graft, bribery and blackmail were common.

Now the Spanish Inquistion info:

Spanish Inquisition:
"The purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was to discover and punish converted Jews (and later Muslims) who were insincere. However, all Spaniards began to fear its prying eyes. The death penalty was used more often than in the Roman Inquisition, and rules that condemned one for heresy were far stricter, often outlawing things the Roman Church approved.

Okay, so exactly where are you placing blame on the Jewish people in either of these two inquisitions, Bob?????
Seems to me they were the victims here, which makes your assertions very much lacking, 'my friend'.


>>Under Jewish success now extended to US, we have nothing but their media, taxes, movies, institutes, gov officials, pseudo-science, and literature like the one of Carl Sagan's.

Perhaps you aren't making yourself very clear (in fact, I know you aren't...lol), but are you saying that the jews brainwashed everyone with pseudo-science?
Are you saying that Carl Sagan's writings were what, sanctioned by the jews in order to what, destroy Christianity?

You do realize that your assertions here sound no different than many conspiracy theories we hear about, right Bob?
Where is your verifiable evidence to support your extraordinary claims here, huh Bob?


>>My question is: living and being "educated" in this Jewish world, is it possible to discuss God? What do we know about Him NOT coming from the Jewish Bible and/or other god-mocking sources? Do we have anything available of a non-Jewish point of view?

Excuse me while I stop shaking my head, at whatever it is you're trying to say here Bob.
Are you saying this is a JEWISH WORLD today?
Well, if you live in Israel and consider that "this world", then you'd probably be right, but if you mean the USA etc., you again have a lot of proving to do with that assertion.

What knowledge here are you suggesting is being suppressed by the Jews?
You seem to have this odd-duck idea that everything available in the media, is all filtered through some jewish world interest, or something.

Bob, you sure make it sound like the jews are to blame for everything, when it comes to the downfall of your xtian religion?

Let me toss out another theory to you, that makes a whole lot more sense than your own theory.
How about some of us just got a little bit wiser and escaped your xtian brainwashing, by looking around this world at reality, instead of living inside some very biased xtian god bubble. How about we took notice that your jesus hasn't a leg to stand on, when it comes to proving he ever existed.

Let me guess: Bob here would say that we used to have lots of history about christ's life, but the jews burned it all, way back when, just to try and kill off his memory.

Really Bob, for the life of me I can't tell where the heck you're coming from, as you seem to make some pretty grandiose claims here, but they are instantly thwarted by not only your poor writing skills, but your seemingly outlandish suggestions you also make.

So yeah, do come back and TRY to not only explain yourself better, but also come back with some evidence to back whatever your claims might be, m'kay


ATF (who has a gut feeling Jim Arvo will have a field day with this conspiracy theory, that Bob presents here)

I see what you mean ATF. I find it difficult to believe that someone could really think this way. I wonder if Bob is what some people would call a poe? I'd be much happier if he were a poe than if he actually believed the things he wrote.

It's bad when you hope someone is making stuff up for his own amusement, because the alternative is much worse.

Your lineup of (Jewish) slogans and stage no. 2 of (Jewish) defense: Personal attacks, only prove how much correct I was saying that you have grown up in Jewish environment right here in America. To take you outside of your stuporous bubble, plenty of non-Jewish documents would have to be reviewed, what you will never do. But, maybe it would help you if I started some thinking process of you by asking a simple and your own question: "Who made you give up on God?"

Bob,

Your antisemitism is apparent, but blanket, unsupported accusations of the sort you are making are at the very least irritating. If you have any verifiable evidence that we can examine to support your paranoid conspiratorial thinking, please specifically delineate those items. If, however, all you have is a general racial hatred you feel compelled to propagate, this isn't the place for that.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Wow... lots of thoughts floating around... from way back in April nonetheless. Very cool =)!

One thing that I'd have to point out is that while this started off as a discussion atheism and truth... bob's comments actually reflect a view that I would hope that the majority of Christians do not believe. Ie. that the Jews, who we believe were God's chosen people, are responsible for half the upheaval of the Middle ages... (believe that antisemitism (sp?) is quite vile... and I do regret that some Christians forget what we're meant to be living for... and take it out on the "oppressors" of Christ... *sigh)

However to get back to the original topic, and because I'm studying this at the moment as part of my job, I thought I'd try my hardest to answer some of the comments that have been made here.

Firstly in regards to all of the comments to healtheland. While I don't know what he/she was asking exactly, I can ask the same question.

Evolution, by its very nature, believes that all of nature evolved, through the betterment of the following generation to the next, into the world that we have today. However by its very nature, Evolution MUST have a starting point at which to begin their process. (Also known as the Origin of Life). Thus the question, where did consciousness, or LIFE, (the thing that causes us to live AND reason) come from?

Evolutionist (scientist or not) will tell you that they do not have a concrete or agreed upon theory for WHAT exactly this origin of life is. Nor do they have a clear theory on how the physical world (gravity, laws of thermodynamics) came to be.

While you may say that Christians are dogmatic (and I would be inclined to agree with you, I AM fairly stubborn a lot of the time). I would have to point out that believing that the answer is out there, though not found, requires equally, if not MORE faith than Christianity, which already has an answer.

And to say that "God did it" is truly what we believe. However even if you don't believe in the existence of a God who you can not see, I would challenge YOU to reconsider your own pre-conceptions. You believe in a history that you never witnessed, a globe that only a very few people have seen (and taken pictures of true), a universe who none of us truly can understand.

Can you not also take that skepticism and turn it around? As a Christian I have searched for the truth for a long time. While I do admit there are some times where I do not know the answer... the search for the truth is just that, a continuous search, following the path that I have chosen based on the facts at hand... and I continue to re-assess the facts, as Christians are supposed to do (it's in the Bible).

Hmm, that was fairly long... perhaps I'll stop here. If anyone has any questions, drop me a message or comment in any of my blogs.

InteGR7 wrote:
Evolutionist (scientist or not) will tell you that they do not have a concrete or agreed upon theory for WHAT exactly this origin of life is. Nor do they have a clear theory on how the physical world (gravity, laws of thermodynamics) came to be.
---
InteGR7,

Why is this such a problem for you?
How many things have been discovered, that were once upon a time, unknowns?
Yet, the human race survived without knowing what yet was to be discovered.

While most of us have a curiosity to seek answers to things unknown, not all of us are so determined to come up with ANY answer, that we have to invent a god being to be the answer to those unknowns.
Some of us are okay in waiting till the answer comes from research, or even by chance alone.

God used to be the pat-answer to many little mysteries of our human past, yet one-by-one, we discovered god wasn't involved.
e.g. We no longer think lightening bolts are being thrown by a god in the clouds (well, most of us anyway).

Whether we figure something out in our lifetime or not, there is no reason to jump to a conclusion that some god-did-it.


>>While you may say that Christians are dogmatic (and I would be inclined to agree with you, I AM fairly stubborn a lot of the time). I would have to point out that believing that the answer is out there, though not found, requires equally, if not MORE faith than Christianity, which already has an answer.

I'm quite sure most of the answers are 'out there', and will one day be discovered.
However, it could be true that some things may never be solved, but again, that doesn't point to a god as an answer, for if it did, that would raise even more questions about this god's existence instead.


>>And to say that "God did it" is truly what we believe. However even if you don't believe in the existence of a God who you can not see, I would challenge YOU to reconsider your own pre-conceptions. You believe in a history that you never witnessed, a globe that only a very few people have seen (and taken pictures of true), a universe who none of us truly can understand.

Believing in documented history or that the earth is a globe, doesn't take a leap of faith, as a god belief would.
There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that we live on a globe, versus a biblical flat earth, nor does the non-god basic human history employ a need for an extraordinary beliefs either.
Such things as these, are far easier to verify and frankly swallow, than something un-natural, such as ANY god being.
So I think your comparison here is greatly well, lacking, don't you agree?

>>Can you not also take that skepticism and turn it around? As a Christian I have searched for the truth for a long time. While I do admit there are some times where I do not know the answer... the search for the truth is just that, a continuous search, following the path that I have chosen based on the facts at hand... and I continue to re-assess the facts, as Christians are supposed to do (it's in the Bible).

What you fail to see my friend, is that most of us here once had that turned-around skepticism that you presently have.
I once was very skeptical that evolution was valid, for instance.
I once was skeptical that the universe could exists without a god who made it.

So I've been on both sides of this 'coin', but have you?

Until I see some darn good evidence to support the bible god existence, then I have to go with the majority of evidence which clearly indicates such a being is man-made and only lives in the minds of those who wish a god to exist.

In the search for 'truth', why would you feel it's valid to take a path that defies any natural explanation?
Why would you chose to ignore the lack of evidence for your god/jesus.
Why doesn't it bother you that outside your bible, you have no means to verify this jesus lived the life the bible makes claim to?
Such a god-on-earth should and WOULD, have volumes written about him from secular history, but alas, does not.

Any god being worth his/her salt, would be still doing miracles today that would defy human explanation, but no such miracles ever occur in our modern times.
To compensate for this problem, xtians will spread rumors of such miracles, yet if they indeed were of reality, the news media would be reporting them daily I should think.

So sure, if you wish to believe in this god on faith alone, then be my guest.
However, until you have more than emotions for evidence of your god, then don't expect us to follow in your chosen path.
For those who have a critical way of thinking and seek real evidence before making conclusions, we can never believe in things unseen/unproven without at least some circumstantial evidence on the table.
Alas, your bible god has clearly chosen not to provide any evidence of his existence, outside the mind of a xtian believer.

So you can feel sorry for all of us here, but keep in mind that we also feel sorry for you to, for you have chose a path in life that we see as foolish. A quest that is no better than the old horse and carrot trick, where the horse will never reach that carrot, but doesn't know it and so keeps trying to get it.
You'll keep trying to reach your god, but the only thing you'll touch of your god, is all an illusion that your own mind develops to make you feel good.

One last thing, please keep in mind that all of us once held the god belief that you presently do. In our god days, we would have been just as stubborn as you are about this god's reality to.
If I were in your shoes, I'd certainly be wondering what discovery we all made that made us realize we were living a lie for your imaginary god.

If you really are trying to discover the truth of reality, then you'll start looking outside your faith to see if your god exists in every realm one can search through.
i.e. Try reading a history of where your bible came from, followed by a hunt to prove your jesus every walked this earth and that's just for starters.


ATF (Who thinks this xtian has a long long way to go in their search for truth, just as we once all did)

"ATF (Who thinks this xtian has a long long way to go in their search for truth, just as we once all did)"

Yeah, been there -- done that.

I think what finally helped me see through the Creationism rhetoric was understanding that regardless of my lack of knowledge or comprehension of the theory of evolution, the discussion isn't an either/or proposition. In other words, even if evolution could be shown to be completely false, Creationism doesn't become true by default. Creationism isn't proved true by poking holes in a layman's understanding of evolution. Creationism needs to compete by offering evidence in support of its claims.

Evidence is not, "Look around! How could everything be the way it is unless it was created by an intelligent being. Oh, and by the way, the Bible tells us that intelligent being's name."

"Evolution is weird, therefore God exists," is terrible logic.

The other thing that helped me was finally wrapping my head around the fact that saying "God did it" didn't provide any real answers. Since God is presented as existing outside of known reality, then anything HE did was outside examination. If "God did it" then whatever "it" was would remain outside of our ability to ever comprehend it.

So, in other words, the answer "God did it" is materially the same as "I don't know." God knows, but I don't, and I can never know, because God and His ways are unsearchable.

Evidently "I don't know" is anathema to many people; they prefer "God knows." In the end those people still don't personally know anything more than the honest "I don't know," but it feels better for them to think that someone very powerful out there knows what the heck is going on. It's like a parent in the sky for the scared little child inside.

Hey ATF, webmaster

It's interesting that you both should say what you have. You know, my goal here, is not to attempt to convert you to Christianity over the internet, as amazing as that might seem to you. I know that it's impossible, as finding Christ isn't through logic alone.

What I'm trying to show you is nothing more than this. You say that Christians believe that "god did it" as an answer to not knowing, or not being able to explain. My simple answer is that IF that is true, you should afford us the same weight to our arguments that you give yourself.

ATF wrote:
"Why is this such a problem for you?
How many things have been discovered, that were once upon a time, unknowns?
Yet, the human race survived without knowing what yet was to be discovered."

Webmaster wrote:
"I think what finally helped me see through the Creationism rhetoric was understanding that regardless of my lack of knowledge or comprehension of the theory of evolution, the discussion isn't an either/or proposition. In other words, even if evolution could be shown to be completely false, Creationism doesn't become true by default."

Might this not also apply to Christianity? If you don't understand evolution, it doesn't mean Christianity is true... that's absolutely correct... however if you don't understand Christianity, it doesn't make it inherently wrong either.

This "God delusion" that you seem so fond of pointing out... truly we can not comprehend a God that vast or that big... much like a tree can not comprehend a human, nor an ant understand the complexities of a civilization. However just because that is so "impossible" now, doesn't mean that it's not possible. Similar to what you were saying, before lightning was discovered, people thought that it was the work of gods. Now science has explained that it comes from electrons. To the greeks, they had no comprehension of electrons. Anyone in that day would would have suggested something like that would have been denounced as a lunatic.

Similarly science today can only show a certain amount of evidence, only prove so much. Could it not be that one day we become so advanced that we discover God? While I don't believe that... you almost have to... based on your current line of thinking. Thus you can't discount him so easily.

Secondly... regarding history.

ATF wrote:

"Believing in documented history or that the earth is a globe, doesn't take a leap of faith, as a god belief would."

Do you know how "documented" history truly is? Has your search for the truth taken you to the archeological sites, or to research the veracity of history itself? Have you researched the number of non-biblical references there are to Jesus? Did you know that there are more than the number of total references to Alexander the Great? (I'm talking about documents with accepted academic veracity). History itself is so slanted, polarized and biased, that almost everything we know about the past is accepted purely on faith. A faith in the unseen and unknown. Just because god is unseen and unknown doesn't mean that we can't consider the possibility that he might exist. You might say that history (ie the things that have happened in the past) are completely ordinary and plausible. Well in conjuncture with what we known NOW, is not God as equally plausible? Does not faith combined with the current miracle of creation suggest (I don't even say demand) that there is a God? I don't even mean the God of the Bible... I'm just talking about a god, or an intelligent design. See if you can't even accept THAT possibility, that I would say that you, not I am being more dogmatic and blind in your rejection of truth.

Lastly... regarding miracles.

ATF wrote
"Any god being worth his/her salt, would be still doing miracles today that would defy human explanation, but no such miracles ever occur in our modern times.
To compensate for this problem, xtians will spread rumors of such miracles, yet if they indeed were of reality, the news media would be reporting them daily I should think."

If you truly were a Christian, you would know the answer to this statement. However I'll explain it to those of you who don't.

If God showed up on earth, send miracles, or anything of that nature... what would happen? The world would turn to him, because they have seen the wonders of the God's power. Out of fear, out of wonder, out of greed... for whatever reason. However if that were to happen, then (I believe) that God would have just created man to live like that anyway. We would be born without free will and would serve God from the moment of our birth.

That defeats the reason that (I believe) God created us. He wants us to choose him willingly, out of love... he doesn't want robots. (The debate on why to then create us is a completely different one that I can answer, but it's a bit late)

Now while you might not believe what I believe... that does answer the question... why do we not see miracles day in day out? Because God won't impose himself on people who do not genuinely desire to see him move. If you don't believe me, I urge you to try it out. If you really want to search for the truth, ask him to reveal himself to you... and if you truly are seeking for the answer and the truth of this life (see "not sarcastic, close minded or already decided")... I promise that he will.

Integr7,

Bible God has become the God of the Gaps. As science finds natural explanations for things like lightening, thunder, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, floods, disease, etc., God has had to retreat into the gaps of our ignorance.

As long as we remain ignorant of some things, Bible God will have a place to retreat.

Webmaster wrote:
"I think what finally helped me see through the Creationism rhetoric was understanding that regardless of my lack of knowledge or comprehension of the theory of evolution, the discussion isn't an either/or proposition. In other words, even if evolution could be shown to be completely false, Creationism doesn't become true by default."

Integr7 wrote, "Might this not also apply to Christianity? If you don't understand evolution, it doesn't mean Christianity is true... that's absolutely correct... however if you don't understand Christianity, it doesn't make it inherently wrong either."

Bad comparison. What you should have written is "If Creationism is shown to be false, that doesn't make Evolution true by default. And with that, I'd agree. Neither stand s by default because the other falls. Each must demonstrate its veracity with testable evidence.

Creationism is as possible or reasonable an answer for our ignorance as any other, but is it the most plausible or likely answer? Since so many mysteries once attributed to deity have been discovered to be the results of natural, mindless forces, it seems quite likely many more of the world's mysteries will revealed by science and relegated to the natural world.

If science one day discovered "God," then "God" would no longer be supernatural. Only the natural can be discovered by science. And if you say you can discover the supernatural, you're deceived. You are natural, and all you can hope to connect with is the natural. You can believe the emotions, feelings, visions, or ecstatic experiences are supernatural, but in reality they all have physiological explanations. If your brain were removed from your body, you'd have no spiritual experiences at all. All "spiritual" experiences occur within the brain.

You also said God doesn't want robots. I challenge you to quote the Bible verse that supports that position. If you are correct that God doesn't want robots, what he apparently does want is billions upon billions of hapless human beings suffering in everlasting torment for the horrific sin of unbelief.

It's a funny myth, but I believed it myself for years. Now it all seems so silly.

Integr7: "you should afford us the same weight to our arguments that you give yourself."

Uh, no. I see no reason for giving your religion's creation-fairytale equal weight with science because you simply don't have the data to justify your position.

How would you like it if *I* insisted that the Norse creation myth should be put on an equal footing, too?

"Yes, folks... When the frost melted, a cow named Audhumla licked the first man out of a block of ice..."

Not! As much as I love and honour My ancestors, I think I'll look for My answers in physics, chemistry and biology.

"Just because god is unseen and unknown doesn't mean that we can't consider the possibility that he might exist."

Considering a possibility, is a far cry from believeing in it. One can consider the possibility of there existing an alien life form that will come to earth someday to give us all the sex and beer we could ever want. Believeing that it will happen is another matter. It would be impractical to believe it and make descisions based on this belief.

Wouldn't you agree? If so, please explain why you agree.

"Because God won't impose himself on people who do not genuinely desire to see him move."

Given the current news story of a little girl who died while the parents genuinely desired god to impose/move, it seems that he won't impose/move no matter what one desires or how genuine and urgent their desire is. Why is that again?

Could it be that a god doesn't exist?

Or perhaps they were praying to the wrong one. Or they weren't praying the proper way. Or(insert typical religious dogmatic responses here). My point is to show you how very quickly a god belief turns to dogmatic assertions and excuses to cover for "his" non-movement in reality. As in, the whole "genuine desire" cop-out. If one doesn't get a god imposed "move" in his or her life it's always easier to claim they didn't desire it enough or with enough faith or something else that gets your claim of a god off the hook.

Another thing that you seem to have forgotten, christian, is that the biblegod had NO problem imposing his will according to the bible. Egypt, the ten plagues, remember? Also in that fancy little tale we see god "hardening the heart" of the pharaoh just as he was about to relent and do what moses asked. But noooo! Your god couldn't stand for pharaoh making up his own mind so he put the smack-down on his free will, just so he could screw with everyone a little bit longer, really make 'em suffer.

"If you don't believe me, I urge you to try it out."

I, for one, genuinely desired the biblegod's imposition in my life when I was a christian and needed it. Your promise failed before you even made it.

InteGR7 wrote:
Hey ATF, webmaster
Might this not also apply to Christianity? If you don't understand evolution, it doesn't mean Christianity is true... that's absolutely correct... however if you don't understand Christianity, it doesn't make it inherently wrong either.
----
Integr7,

I'm not really sure what you mean by "however if you don't understand Christianity"
That statement would imply that we didn't understand Christianity when we were xtians, or at least, thought we had at the time.

The real problem though, is that Christianity is impossible to understand, if one uses the only book available to learn about it; The Bible.
If this were not true, then we wouldn't have 30,000 sects all disagreeing what those Scriptures are suppose to mean.

Each sect, each person, develops their own understanding of what they believe the bible say's.
For this very reason, you most likely will not be in harmony with another xtian on this website, as we've seen demonstrated time and time again. Right MARC?

What YOU believe the bible say's is your own interpretation of it.
Therefore, even if your xtian god does exists, he's not concerned enough to give us a current update of your babble book, nor does this Holy Spook of his, provide any harmony with the answers it is claimed to give every saved xtian.

In a nutshell, it's a totally hopeless situation, to reconcile your trusted bible book.

>>To the greeks, they had no comprehension of electrons. Anyone in that day would would have suggested something like that would have been denounced as a lunatic.

There is a natural progression in new discoveries. Meaning, huge leaps in knowledge are quite rare. Baby steps are the norm in us gaining knowledge of how things work.

The Greeks would have been skipping several necessary science-acquisition-steps to assert such an electron possibility. They didn't have the technology in other area's to prove/disprove electrons.

While the Greeks would have had no means to verify an electron theory, the relatively huge step here for them to assert a theory for those electrons, would have been microscopic in comparison to your assertion of a god being who created the entire huge universe and all it's life forms.
i.e. If they had made such an assertion for electrons, it would have been a mere tiny inch in jumping forward in discovery, while something like your god would be more like thousands of miles, on the same scale.

>> Could it not be that one day we become so advanced that we discover God? While I don't believe that... you almost have to... based on your current line of thinking. Thus you can't discount him so easily.

Of course, we will never discover YOUR god, in my opinion here.
Frankly, we shouldn't have to 'discover' your god, if he's real.
He should be making himself known without question in MY opinion, and until he decides to stop playing his childish hide&seek game with his creation, then I have no logical reason to just ASS-ume he's of my reality.
Therefore, I greatly discount this god of yours, for those reason plus many many others to.

>>Do you know how "documented" history truly is? Has your search for the truth taken you to the archeological sites, or to research the veracity of history itself?

One person cannot do every bit of research one would have to do in verifying every piece of common knowledge. We have to put some trust in those who make it their expertise to discover such knowledge.
However, if a piece of accepted history turns out to be incorrect, then how large is the affect on humanity from such an error.
We might have to re-write some history books if some fact is shown to be in error.
We might even have to change the credit we give to certain figures of history, but such error corrections won't change the big picture of things.

Again, history talks about things from non-mystical and very explainable events, versus your bible, which makes claims to things that are both mystical and clearly from the supernatural.


>>Have you researched the number of non-biblical references there are to Jesus?

Yes indeed, I have done that and recently to.
The FEW lame references that exist, greatly fail to prove your jesus was a living breathing person, let alone a god on earth.
More so, it's the huge lack of secular references that speaks loud about your jesus having been a figment of someone's over worked (or mushroom drugged) imagination.


>>Did you know that there are more than the number of total references to Alexander the Great? (I'm talking about documents with accepted academic veracity).

We've heard this before, as this is a common plea from your run-of-the-mill xtian apologist.
We've had xtians come in here trying to show us all this evidence, yet they never bring forth anything that can't be EASILY shot down.
Perhaps you have some special historical knowledge that you can produce to us, to show your jesus was REAL????


>>History itself is so slanted, polarized and biased, that almost everything we know about the past is accepted purely on faith. A faith in the unseen and unknown.

Even if you convinced me that half of all history we think is true today, was proven flawed, it would not prove your jesus was real, now would it.
I have a feeling that you are also prone to conspiracy theories to, aren't you?
(Just a hunch)


>> Just because god is unseen and unknown doesn't mean that we can't consider the possibility that he might exist.

I think Stronger Now explained this fairly well already to you.
If I go with this theme of yours here, then I would land up accepting thousands of unproven things that might be possible.
If you want anyone here to buy into your god, you'll have to do far better than this line of reasoning I'm afraid.


>>You might say that history (ie the things that have happened in the past) are completely ordinary and plausible.

Yes, I most certainly would agree with history being 'ordinary', which is why I won't buy into something like a magical Atlantis continent either.

>>Well in conjuncture with what we known NOW, is not God as equally plausible?

Absolutely NOT!!
In fact, our science knowledge today would make your god even far less likely than in our human past of ignorance.

How could such a being exists throughout all time, throughout the infinite space of the universe, and contain an infinite amount of knowledge, energy, and know what will occur on every date in the infinite future?
As Boomslang has pointed out countless times now (and very well I might add), there is a huge contradiction in having a god who has infinite power and the ability to foresee any future event.
Need I explain this to you?


>> Does not faith combined with the current miracle of creation suggest (I don't even say demand) that there is a God?

What 'miracle' of creation do you speak of here?
If you mean US, and our universe, then just because we don't know all the details about where it/we came from, doesn't automatically designate some god being, now does it.

>> I don't even mean the God of the Bible... I'm just talking about a god, or an intelligent design. See if you can't even accept THAT possibility, that I would say that you, not I am being more dogmatic and blind in your rejection of truth.

No, I can't accept such a possibility without at least some evidence to back it up.
Obviously, your bible book is not worthy of being counted as evidence to us here.
Perhaps you have some external evidence then?


ATF wrote
"Any god being worth his/her salt, would be still doing miracles today that would defy human explanation, but no such miracles ever occur in our modern times.
To compensate for this problem, xtians will spread rumors of such miracles, yet if they indeed were of reality, the news media would be reporting them daily I should think."

>>If God showed up on earth, send miracles, or anything of that nature... what would happen? The world would turn to him, because they have seen the wonders of the God's power. Out of fear, out of wonder, out of greed... for whatever reason. However if that were to happen, then (I believe) that God would have just created man to live like that anyway. We would be born without free will and would serve God from the moment of our birth.

Okay, let's take the idea of god showing his face to the population of earth, off the evidence table then.
If god provides evidence to his xtian believers, by answering at least some of their prayers, by healing the sick etc., then such actions should be very evident when studies are done on prayer.
Yet, if anything, such studies show praying for the sick actually has an adverse effect on them.
Also, if god will cure some cancer patients who ask him to, then why does he ignore other xtian cancer patients at the same time. Why does he ignore so many innocent children as well. Why does he NEVER restore a torn off arm or leg from ANY xtian victim?
Why doesn't he seem to heal any of his great xtian human leaders?
(A topic we once covered here in detail btw)


>>He wants us to choose him willingly, out of love... he doesn't want robots. (The debate on why to then create us is a completely different one that I can answer, but it's a bit late)

Okay, let's go with your robot idea here for shits and giggles.
Are the angels he created robots or do they have free will?
Given that Satan and his band of demons rebelled, I would assume they were given free will, yes?
So that means your god already had created some company for himself, in the form of angels who also happen to have the same free will you claim god gave us.

Answer me this then.
What does you bible say about why god felt it necessary to create corporal beings of matter and put them on a planet?
What purpose do we serve to god, that his angels couldn't have provided him?
If we are all going to become spirits after we die (in heaven or hell), then god will land up with spirit angels and spirit x-humans, right.
Am I to suppose that humans are vastly more coveted than angels are, to your god, and if so, WHY is that?

Why wouldn't your god be happy with robots. Robots who would never defy him?
Why does he need a free-willed being to worship him in the first place.
Does your god FEED off this worshipping of him, like some aliens do that we see in various sci-fi movies?
If we stop worshipping him, will your god die?

Please, explain to all of us why your god has ANY need in the first place, let alone a need to be worshipped.
If god has all those attributes you xtians cite him with, then it would make no sense that he would have a weakness to be worshipped by us lowly humans, right?

>>Now while you might not believe what I believe... that does answer the question... why do we not see miracles day in day out? Because God won't impose himself on people who do not genuinely desire to see him move.

Hey, I'll settle for indisputable proof that he takes ACTION for you xtians, in your own lives.
No, I don't mean things you could have done under your own steam, but things that only a supernatural being could have accomplished.
Got any of that kind of proof, perhaps?

>> If you don't believe me, I urge you to try it out. If you really want to search for the truth, ask him to reveal himself to you... and if you truly are seeking for the answer and the truth of this life (see "not sarcastic, close minded or already decided")... I promise that he will.

Been there, Done that, as have most of us here.
Alas, your silly god decided to snooze instead.
-OR-
Gee golly gosh, could it be, we were praying to empty space all along, hmmmm?

Tell you what, you are sure your god exists, right.
I'm willing to bet that you believe in this god for two main reasons.
1. Because you can emotionally FEEL him.
2. Because certain events in your life seem beyond random chance to you, so naturally, god-did-it.

Other than those two things my fine feathered friend, you really got ZIP to show for your efforts in your god belief.
Oh, but I'm sure your wallet is a bit lighter huh.

Face it, all your arguments here are nothing but a set of excuses you've been taught to use, or thought up yourself.
Xtians should get an award for the most excuses ever used, to bolster some supernatural claim.
For other than these excuses, your god evidence basket, is nothing but a perfect vacuum.


ATF (Who thinks this xtain should debate our other xtians, so we can finally see who has the real 'truth' about jesus)

Wow… that was crazy! I post up one comment, and I get 3 (sorry 4) well thought out responses, that go for 10 pages (depending on font) in Word… TEN pages! I had to get my 2nd computer out to cope with my reply… I am indeed truly (and I’m certainly not being sarcastic here) honored that you would spend so much time on responding to my dissertations.

To very quickly answer some of your points

Stronger now – In reference to your Pharaoh claim. Things changed with the New Testament. The OT showed us that even with the power of God always present (I mean check out the miracles that are in our “Bible Book”) the people didn’t follow God. So, he showed us the 2nd part of plan (after illustrating WHY we needed a second part.) We (the “xtians” as you guys like to type) were meant to show the love and grace of God through our very lives… Of course that doesn’t always work… as they are a lot of “Christians” that aren’t really. It’s a sad but true fact of life. How can I make that claim? Well there are some things in the Bible that aren’t really open to interpretation, ie that we should love God and love others… or not be hypocritical.

ATF – In response to your comment about the 30,000 or what not sects: Humans aren’t the most perfect of beings… or have you not noticed that? Christians are humans too… and often let their own desires “re-interpret” the Bible. It’s not that God doesn’t care enough to correct us… but rather that people will often “ignore” the clear truth (ie the important things that I mentioned before)… and then teach others to do so as well. Plus, most of the sects are not in disagreement about the basis of our salvation … that God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. They generally nitpick over other stuff.

Also could I ask you to show me exactly what “science knowledge today would make [my] god even far less likely”?

I know the apparent contradiction between omnipotence and omniscient. Do you want me to explain to you how it works though, because surely you’ve heard the answer but simply choose not to believe it?

Lastly to respond to everyone’s comment re: Free Will, human robots and such.
I honestly don’t know why God would choose to make humanity, knowing full well that we would sin, and already having planned out how to bring us back to him. I know that he gave us the will to choose to sin (in Genesis, giving Adam and Eve a single command of what NOT to do), and that shows, to me anyway, that he didn’t create us to be robots. He wanted us to choose him, other wise our worship would be hollow. Why? I really don’t know… but that’s ok right?

However you know what I’ve realized? You guys are missing my point. Sure you’ve got good answer to many of my questions, and just by reading the ways that the four of you have answered my questions, you have similar points of view etc. What I’m really trying to show you is this. You are guilty (if you will excuse the harsh and loaded term) of the same attitudes that you accuse me of.

- You ask for concrete evidence of a supernatural God, yet you can accept a lack of evidence for the origin of life or the creation of the physical world
- Astreja, you demanded “data” to justify my position… could I see yours?
o I think we’ve already determined a distinct LACK of hard data showing how the earth came into existence… but that’s alright correct? According to Web and ATF anyway.
- You come at me with emotive and critical language, seeking to ridicule my point of view. I merely am trying to show you that what you believe is based on your PERCEPTIONS and INTEPRETATION of the facts rather than on the facts themselves. I.E. a faith.
o I have no need to convince you that I’m correct… I just want to open your own eyes to the truth… that what you believe is ALSO based on just that, belief.
o If you disagree, show me three straight out facts that prove that you’re right. Please. (That’s what I meant in my comparison Webmaster)

See, you think that I’ve coming at you from a completely “Christian” perspective. You’re actually a touch off. While most of you were once “Christian” and have seen the light… I was once like you, a Christian who had de-converted. I didn’t believe the Bible, I even had a theory for proving it false. I didn’t agree with church… I didn’t like most Christians. So don’t get me wrong… I completely understand where you guys are at, otherwise I wouldn’t be spending so much of my time trying to hold a conversation with an ever increasing number of people! = )

What changed for me, what drew me back to God, was NOT the Creation vs. Evolution debate. It wasn’t the pros vs cons of Jesus vs. Atheism, it wasn’t “feeling” God or being swept along in worship. Sure eventually I discovered all those things… and I still believe that my positions are plausible and indeed true (and we could discuss those until Jesus returns for all I know). However that’s never going to convince you that God exist. You can not find God with your mind, for he is, as someone said, not a natural being.

If you can not accept the possibility of something beyond what you can touch and see, hear or taste, feel or even sense, then that’s fine. I’m not asking you to put your minds to sleep while you come to God. I just want you to believe the very same things that you’re asking me to accept. If you can’t explain something, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be true. I’m not asking you to “therefore” believe in God. Heck no… I just want to establish that base.

I apologize for not being able to respond to everything… 10 pages is a bit tough to do in 30 - 45 minutes, and I do have a full time job plus all my church volunteering activities (it’s Sunday)… so I hope you understand. I’ll check again tonight and tomorrow though.

Integ7 (Who thinks that people should take the plank out of their own eye before pointing out the speck in their brother's)

Intgr7,

If you cannot find God with your mind, then must God be found without using your mind?

Is that really what you mean? That God must be found without using the mind?

Heh, you know very well that I'm not saying that. God is spirit, as you said supernatural, thus to find him takes more then JUST reason alone. It takes faith :)

But please do not detract from my main point.

"Stronger now – In reference to your Pharaoh claim. Things changed with the New Testament."

As I said before, the dogmatic excuses just keep comeing. I offered an example of how the biblegod screws up the notion of free will by imposing his will and you're claiming that he doesn't do that anymore? You're avoiding the problem I pointed out by averting attention to something else.

To reiterate:

If, as the bible says, your god never changes and he is the same god spoken of in the old and new testament, how do you reconcile your claim that god doesn't impose upon our human free will when the example I gave you clearly shows that he does?

Intgr7,

What exactly is "faith?" Isn't faith simply belief in the absense of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary?

Seriously! If faith exists somewhere outside of cognition, then where does it reside?

People make a decision to either believe the gospel message or not, based on individual reasoning. The idea of faith is just a way for people to admit they don't really have a good reason for believing in magical extra-dimensional entities, but they have chosen to believe in these things anyway.

Regardless of the individual conclusion drawn, all conclusions are drawn by the natural brain using the ability to reason.

The only real discussion is whether or not any of our individual reasoning is flawed.
I don't care if yours is flawed, but you seem intent on correcting mine. So, show me exactly how my reasoning is flawed in being skeptical of ancient hearsay accounts of magical events in real time and space.

Hi Stronger,

If you read over that little paragraph again, carefully, you'll notice that I covered why exactly our God, who indeed is unchanging, changed his plan... to show us why we needed to change the plan. Otherwise we would be whining about why he doesn't show these miracles to us all the time now... as indeed many people are.

As to the hardening of his heart, Pharaoh made his choice to reject God. He had several opportunities to listen and obey... yet in the face of several miracles, he hardened his heart. So God made sure that he received the punishments for his actions, since he was proud and did not repent.

Web,

I'm not pointing out that your logic is flawed in accepting "I don't know" as your answer. There are seriously plenty of things that I don't know regarding Christianity and God.

I'm just saying that in accepting "I don't know" as your answer... you are exhibiting faith... in something that you don't know. Belief in absence of facts.

While you may tell me that I'm "believing in magical extra-dimensional entities" based on faith... and I partially am... but you're believing in "something yet to be discovered" based on the very same faith. That's all I'm trying to say really.

Intgr7... God is spirit, as you said supernatural, thus to find him takes more then JUST reason alone. It takes faith :)

For our benefit, would you please tell us once and for all - preferably in concise language - exactly what a "spirit" is?

Mind you, if, whatever this "thing" is, it is metaphysical(as "supernatural" implies), then where is the material evidence that substantiates the existence of this immaterial "thing" you speak of?... and what apparatus or "senses" do you use to detect the existence of said "thingie"?

(And notice, this isn't an inquiry to learn what "spirit" is not..i.e.. "God is not of this world".."God does not interfere with our free will" etc,. yada, yada)

Intgr7 adds...But please do not detract from my main point.

If your main point is "Faith", then you literally have no point, except where personal, individual beliefs are concerned. This is because, with "Faith", there is an infinite list of things that can be accepted as "True", that is, if "Faith" means believing even in lack of evidence; believing in spite of being uncertain. After all, that is the whole premise of "Faith".

If "Faith" has some other definition that I'm not aware of, I'm eager to learn what it "really" means, as is the Webmaster, which, I suspect is why he asked you as well.

Waiting.

Intgr7...I know the apparent contradiction between omnipotence and omniscient. Do you want me to explain to you how it works though, because surely you’ve heard the answer but simply choose not to believe it?

Yes, yes!..please do explain---because if you can do so and still be consistant with logic, then you have solved an age-old enigma.

Better yet, let's make it easy for you. I'll be convinced if you would please just reason through the following hypothetical senario, a senario where we'll presume you are both "omniscient", and "omnipotent". Here it is:

As of this very second, and for an infinite time previous to this second, you have, and have had, the precise knowledge that next Monday at 3:00 in the afternoon, you will be having coffee with your best friend, and giving him/her some advice that you "know" they'll need. 'Follow? Okay, to be clear---again, you'll be meeting and having coffee at that precise moment, because you have "decided", based on your knowledge of the future set of ALL events("omniscience"), that that's what you will do. 'Still with me? Any objections?

Okay, then we should further be able to agree that this decision is ultimately what you will(must) do, because if it were negotiable, then obviously, you didn't "know" for certain what you would ultimately do in a situation that was predetermined, right?(rhetorically asked)

Thus, if it's non-negotiable, then you are obviously powerless to change your mind, which, remember, is a position that was/is based on your alleged "knowledge" of the future. In other words, you are NOT a being with "free will".

Bottom line: You cannot have it both ways, and neither can your biblegod(assuming, of course, that said being exists)

Hi there boomslang, I've heard a little bit about you, good to see that you've dropped in to chat.

I believe, if you read over my point regarding spirit (about 2 of my posts up) I did mention that you can't really use your material senses to understand a immaterial God... and I re-iterated my point in the passage that you quoted... so I don't really see much of a point of repeating myself... however because I'm nice...

You can not sense God through your five sense, nor through material "apparatus". Sure I could "claim" that I feel God, that he speaks to me, that I hear his voice through his Word etc etc... however that's not what you're looking for it is? How bout this then? I don't have hard material evidence to back up an immaterial God. Happy? I mean why would I even need it? I don't know exactly what spirit is... does that mean I'm delusional or illogical? Or merely like yourselves, who don't have all the answers.

However that is where I'm asking you not to detract from my main point... which is indeed faith. I really wish people who replied to my posts would actually read them, so I don't have to repeat myself. All throughout this entire conversation every single person (who sides against us Christians) has said that "just because we do not know the answer, does not mean that "god has done it" " So I say in response merely this... if you can accept that there are areas in your belief that you just "don't know" ... does that not make what you believe equally a faith?

No one has yet to answer that point... they seem content to pick holes in my lack of facts... which is the same as your lack of facts. See? We both have a faith = )

Ok, now in response so your 2nd post about the double omni's... your example was fairly specific, and somewhat complicated, but I totally get your point. However I would answer it in two ways.

A: In order for this paradox TO exist, we must accept that fact that omniscient and omnipotence are beyond what we can rationalize... because we do not have those traits ... which is sorta like how a tree can not rationalize the thoughts or minds of a human.. for example. However I'm aware that this might not satisfy you, so I'll try a slightly, if incomplete, logical answer.

B: In said situation, you are not powerless to change your decision, rather omniscient is not merely knowing what WILL happen... but what CAN happen, and what can happen as a result. Thus I know what will happen if I give the advice, however I know what will happen if I don't, so the choice is still open to me, and I already know what choice I will make, I merely do not choose to take it. It's not about being powerless, but choosing to consciously limit myself to the choice that I have made before.

However there are still holes in that, and thus I stand by my point A: Unless you're omniscient and omnipotent yourself, I don't see how you could possibly tell me that it's impossible. It's like trying to comprehend eternity... your head literally starts to hurt sometimes.

Anyway, could I please make a plea, to all of you, to read my point regarding faith carefully. I would very much like to hear what you have to say about your own faith. Thanks, hope you've had a good weekend... mine was pretty cruddy... *sigh.

Intgr7...Hi there boomslang, I've heard a little bit about you..

Marvelous!... so then you know that while I generally consider attempts at dimplomacy a good thing, dimplomacy, itself, does not a good argument make. If you didn't hear that part "about me", you know it now.

Intgr7...good to see that you've dropped in to chat.

Okay, thanks, but actually, it's quite the contrary--you have "dropped in" here; you are the "guest" here on this website, a website which as been set-up and designated for people who formerly believed "Christianity".

Intgr7...I believe, if you read over my point regarding spirit (about 2 of my posts up) I did mention that you can't really use your material senses to understand a immaterial God...

Okay, thanks. But as of right now, what do you mean by the word "understand"? Does that imply a material "connection" of some sort? Or is it intuition("gut instinct")? In any event, I believe you are being equivocal here. And when you say that you "can't really" do this, that, or the other thing, this too, is equivocation, in my book.

Look, either you can somehow detect a meta-physical realm with your limited physical senses(in which case, hard, physical evidence is possible); or you cannot detect said meta-physical realm(in which case, your only alternative is "faith")

This, IMO, is the crux of issue, and it is one that needs to be cleared-up from the onset of these discussions, because in my experience, the "faithful" inevitably want to have it both ways. You seem to be trying this right now, in fact.

You said...You can not sense God through your five sense, nor through material "apparatus".

you then said...

Sure I could "claim" that I feel God, that he speaks to me, that I hear his voice through his Word etc etc

Yes, yes, of course...and likewise, I could "claim" that I still keep in touch with my invisible playmate from my childhood, and/or, that I have a magic horseshoe that brings me good luck. In either, or both cases, I'd wager that you'd require some type of evidence from me before you could accept such things as "truth", yes?

You reluctantly concede... I don't have hard material evidence to back up an immaterial God. Happy?

Actually, no, not until I read an equally unequivocal admission that your views on the metaphysical, namely, your religious views, are purely opinion. To be honest, I'm doubtful that you will. We'll see.

Intgr7...I mean why would I even need it[evidence]? I don't know exactly what spirit is...

You evidently know enough about a "spirit" to seek/desire others to conform to, and/or, adopt your beliefs about said "thing". And if so, that sufficiently answers your first question in the above-quoted.

Intgr7...does that[lack of evidence] mean I'm delusional or illogical? Or merely like yourselves, who don't have all the answers

Again, to interject the fact that no person has "all the answers" sets up, and attacks, a strawman. Existence exists. That is a mind-independent reality. The current most reliable method for determining what is consistant with this reality, is the scientific method, which, is self-correcting, BTW. If you assert that "faith" is a better or equally sufficient way for determining what is consistant with this reality, then you are implicitly letting people who I'm quite certain you would determine are "delusional", determine reality. See the conflict? Again, "faith" is the culprit.

Intgr7...if you can accept that there are areas in your belief that you just "don't know" ... does that not make what you believe equally a faith?

*By your own logic, you cannot know for certain whether "Allah", or any other "spiritual" exists, or not. And let's remember, people believe in said being on "faith".

So honestly, you "don't know"; you CAN'T "know", which is a form of agnosticism. 'Fair enough?

Okay, if so, then to answer your question---the one that you claim everyone keeps dodging---do you, Intgr7, exercise "faith" to deny the existence of "Allah", or any other "spiritual" god throughout history? Answer that honestly, then you have the answer to your question.

Intgr7...No one has yet to answer that point... they seem content to pick holes in my lack of facts... which is the same as your lack of facts. See? We both have a faith = )

Um, no, that "tit-for-tat" argument is fallacious reasoning. Reread *here, above.

you attempt...A: In order for this paradox TO exist, we must accept that fact that omniscient and omnipotence are beyond what we can rationalize... because we do not have those traits ... which is sorta like how a tree can not rationalize the thoughts or minds of a human.. for example. However I'm aware that this might not satisfy you, so I'll try a slightly, if incomplete, logical answer.

Well good, then. We agree that explanation "A" is lacking. Actually, it fails quite miserably. You are merely speculating that the impossible can be possible some other way than "logically".

Let's see what you have for "B"....

Intgr7...B: In said situation, you are not powerless to change your decision, rather omniscient is not merely knowing what WILL happen... but what CAN happen, and what can happen as a result.

Yes, yes, a given....i.e..you know the potential list of possibilities. However, that is IRRELEVANT, because you also KNOW, a priori, what the ultimately final result will be, per your "omniscience". If not, then you didn't know the outcome to begin with.

Intgr7...I already know what choice I will make, I merely do not choose to take it.

Forgive me, but that statement is utterly non-sensical.

Intgr7...It's not about being powerless, but choosing to consciously limit myself to the choice that I have made before.[bold added]

This is contradictory. If you are limited in ANY capacity, then you forfeit your "omnipotence". Good grief...'that error was pretty blatant.

Intgr7...However there are still holes in that, and thus I stand by my point A: Unless you're omniscient and omnipotent yourself, I don't see how you could possibly tell me that it's impossible. It's like trying to comprehend eternity... your head literally starts to hurt sometimes.

Explanation "A" is as equally inadaquate as explanation "B", for the reasons explained. You are simply taking the dilemma/conflict out of its context, and asserting that the impossible becomes possible because the alleged "omnipotence" makes doing the impossible possible. That's like me asserting that square circles exist on some other planet that we "might not" know about. That is a cop-out.

Intgr7...Anyway, could I please make a plea, to all of you, to read my point regarding faith carefully. I would very much like to hear what you have to say about your own faith.

I would like to make a plea to you, too. Please stop telling us that non-belief, and/or, a position of neutrality, is a "faith". It is not. Non-belief is not the counter-part to "faith-based" religious convictions, as you evidently would love for us all to believe. Thanks.

Integr7 wrote, "I'm just saying that in accepting "I don't know" as your answer... you are exhibiting faith... in something that you don't know. Belief in absence of facts."

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. "I don't know" is a statement of fact.

For instance, is this statement true or false: "In algebraic number theory, these commonly understood integers, embedded in the field of rational numbers, are referred to as rational integers to distinguish them from the more broadly defined algebraic integers."

If I were honest here, I'd have to answer, "I don't know!"

Get it? When you don't know something, it is not a "belief" that you don't know, you just honestly don't know.

I don't have a faith in "I don't know," it's simply the truth. And the truth of the matter is, NO ONE KNOWS how the universe began if it even did begin! NO ONE! Not even you!

To claim that GOD DID IT provides absolutely no insight into how the universe began and adds the assumption into the mix a god, for which there is no evidence.

We once didn't know what caused thunder and lightning, so we attributed those things to a god. Now we know better. Right now we don't know how the universe began, so people are attributing its supposed beginning to a god. As I stated earlier, God keeps retreating into the recesses of our ignorance. As we accumulate more knowledge (which is the actual opposite of "I don't know" instead of faith or belief as you are saying) God is routed from his roost and has to find another dark cave of ignorance in which to camp out.

I do not believe in "something yet to be discovered." I don't know if we'll ever ferret out all the mysteries of the universe, but in the face of mystery, merely retreating into superstition which offers no advancement to understanding, and in fact tells us we can never, ever understand because everything only exists thanks to a meta-natural cast of characters beyond all comprehension (though how any of us could be talking about this at all if it is beyond comprehension) is just plain infantile.

I went to bed Christmas Eve and when I woke up, presents were under the tree. Therefore, Santa exists!

"If you read over that little paragraph again, carefully, you'll notice that I covered why exactly our God, who indeed is unchanging, changed his plan.."

O.k. There's some good fodder for the question cannon right there.

But this seems a little bit more interesting if not disingenuous:

"As to the hardening of his heart, Pharaoh made his choice to reject God."

While it does say in the bible that the pharaoh did harden his own heart from time to time, it also states quite clearly that god did it for him on several occasions.

Exodus 10
"1And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him..."

Your god did indeed disregard the pharaoh's free will and not just once...

...So, if your god does want people to disobey him on occasion, and makes sure he will be disobeyed by thwarting the free will of humans, he has been culpable for human sin. And not just once.

Not that I believe in any of that. But to try and make sense of it and paint your god in the greatest light ever, is silly.


Re-read that story over again. Only, this time, how about you actually read what it says without the rose colored goodie god glasses.

Your either being dishonest with us and yourself, or you honestly don't realize what the bible really says about your god.

Oh, and you still haven't explained why you think your god doesn't still screw with people's free will. Where is that explained in the "new plan"(NT) again?

InteGR7 wrote:
ATF – In response to your comment about the 30,000 or what not sects: Humans aren’t the most perfect of beings… or have you not noticed that? Christians are humans too… and often let their own desires “re-interpret” the Bible. It’s not that God doesn’t care enough to correct us… but rather that people will often “ignore” the clear truth (ie the important things that I mentioned before)… and then teach others to do so as well
--------
Integr7,

First, about the (too) many xtians sects we have today.

If god created every human life (as I assume you believe he does?), did he not realize that he would need to 'compensate' his written words for these human shortcomings you pointed out?
I would think he would have known a method to accomplish that feat, or is he not OMNI-everything anymore?
Perhaps god should have hired a really good lawyer to help him write his words, so he would have a far better chance of being crystal clear to us, in his writings?

As far as having the ability to understand these god-words, without adding a personal flavor to them, le