No, my point is that you claim the universe is so complex that someone had to make it, but such a being would have to be incredibly complex itself, creating another infinite regression. And that brings us back to doe-oh-oh-oh. Doe, a deer, a female deer....


I'm sorry, birth defects are someone else's fault? What are you talking about?


*sigh* I believe that the big bang did happen. But I am not saying the singularity just popped there. I am saying I do not know. You are saying god did it, and that you do not know where god came from. Why are you adding an extra, unnecessary factor? As per Occam's razor, this should be shaved right out of the equation.


What isn't true? The equation thing? And lastly, define a "spiritual being".

Since he can do anything as well, he can make us listen even when we aren't "open" to it.

And I would like you to define being "open" too.

This is all starting to sound really familiar.

I guess it's unfortunate that we don't have any Muslim members that participate in this thread since they'll help broaden this topic even more and further the scope that is being considered. We will then have a chance to explore the identity of the Deity in each religion.

1) It wont create a black hole, a Black hole is when a star dies and collapses in on itself. The bible however says that God himself created Adam then took a Rib from him and made Eve, The God Particle Draws in the atoms around it to make Mass. SO that punches another hole in the story if it is ever proven.

There have already been 3 holes punched in the bible story, although Two are just theories, They probobly will be proven soon.

Don't bother, it's just "figurative".

i was referring to the equation in the first paragraph you quoted.

Being open, i guess, would be defined as quieting down everything around you, and just doing your best to feel him and what he wants you to do. then again, im not a priest or anything, so i dont know the church's doctrine.

A spirit is something that transcends the physical form. i think that perhaps what the other guy (i think it was Aiden who said it) said about it being made from pure energy may be accurate.

And no matter what, the physical thing had to be created by something, and for something to not have to be created by something else, it has to defy the laws of science. The only thing i can really guess could do that would be something that transcends the physical form, therefore ending the chain needed in the big bang. Therefore, any previous or subsequent universes that may or may not have collapsed on themselves resulting in another big bang would be what Occam's Razor shaved off, in theory. i havent done much research.. if you're ever in an area where the priests are more open minded, you should debate this with them, really.

as for birth defects, arent they sometimes caused by a problem durring the pregnancy, such as getting bumped into or drinking or something? and often even then it doesnt really result in insanity so much as mental handicaps, does it? isnt it more often than not emotional trauma? (im not a psychologist, i dont know, so please, if im wrong, explain how psychosis comes about)

Oh, okay. But that is the whole point of my argument. Complexity isn't a factor, so he can solve any equation. That implies that he cannot make an equation too complex for himself.


Like I said, he should be able to communicate with us regardless of whether or not we are open.


But something that is pure energy cannot be intelligent, and besides, "God made us in his image" didn't he?


You have to prove that "non-physical" beings (whatever they are, you cannot prove that they exist) do not require a creator, and can defy the laws of physics. And also if you cannot claim that "non-physical" puts it out of the bounds of physics, because you have claimed he is some sort of energy, which can be dealt with in physical terms. And you are also using the argument from personal incredulity here i.e "I cannot think of any other way this happened, therefore it's probably this one."


And sometimes, it's also just a genetic defect. A malfunction in the chain of evolution.

Well, that's just nature taking its course, then... but isnt it often times not a violent thing when it's a defect? isnt it usually more like a mental handicap then? im probably wrong, please correct me if i am.

no one knows the ESSENCE of God, so it's too hard for anyone to answer those questions, really. the only people who i can really think of who could are like, well educated priests, theologists, and the Pope... so im not the one to be asking, on that topic.

And if it's not a factor in the slightest, how can it really affect anything? that's like asking someone to make an algebra question without a variable...

perhaps he has an appearance, but not a deffinite physical form... kinda like gasses have no deffinite volume, but they're still there.

and he gives us free will, and doesnt want to force himself on us...

It doesn't matter what it usually is. If god is willing to sit back, relax, and watch the "free will" of others destroy a few, he is far from benevolent. Say he is a proponent of free will, fine. But he is not in the least bit benevolent.


Fine, but like I said, there is no one nearby who I can ask. Also, shouldn't you try to know what it is you are worshipping a devoting so much of your time to, rather than revelling in ignorance and "faith"?


Statement: Complexity is not a factor in the slightest.

Implication: God can solve an equation no matter how complex it is, because complexity is nothing to him.

Inference: God cannot make an equation too complex that even he cannot solve, because he'll end up solving it anyway.


That doesn't make sense. You either have a physical form, or you are "non-physical." And the gases thing is a false analogy. Gases can be condensed to liquids which then have a definite volume, so we can infer that they are there. Any way of doing so with a "non-physical" being?



And yet you claim that he is a personal god, i.e one who intervenes. Exactly how much free will did he give the Egyptian Pharaoh during the exodus? To all the first born children? To all the millions of people he has ordered murdered and raped, and pillaged? I think they want some free will too.

You're forgetting the difference between old and new testament... He had to be strict and imprint a powerful moral code on humanity. they didnt listen when he gave them love in the garden of Eden, so he had to show how powerful he was.

And i honestly havent read up enough on religion to know enough to answer your arguments accurately. But perhaps the insanity some are born with are part of his plan; some of the insane have done good things, like van gough.

Or he could instil in all of them a deep love of each other, and of god, and avoid all the bloodshed. Efficiency FTW?


What plan? It's all our free will remember? And what "good things" did van Gogh do?

The point of free will is we do what we feel we must do. Instilling anything kinda contravenes that.


I'm assuming the ''Plan'' is a general direction that humanity should take, towards mutual understanding and love :shrug:


Van Gogh's ''good things'' I assume would be his contributions to art.

But helping Moses and co. out of Egypt doesn't contravene that?

And that doesn't contravene free will? I thought we could do whatever we want, and the only retribution would be in an unproven, unprovable afterlife.



How are those "good things"?

I'd consider any sort of contribution to the beauty of the world a good thing. I don't think any sort of supernatural poppycock was behind it, though. The line between madness and genius has always been a thin one.

It may be beauty to you, and squiggles to me.

If you think Van Gogh is squiggles, you're just an uncultured rube, LOL.

Oy, try to avoid friendly-fire.


Nope.

Divine Intervention is your Get Out of Egypt Card.

Send all your Favor to the Graveyard.

Do not collect $200.



You seem to have a problem with the concept of free-will as I understand it. Assuming God's omniscience is true, him knowing what decision we will make beforehand doesn't change that it was our decision in the first place.


I do think that our lives are what we make of it, Heaven and Hell is right here, right now.

But the fact remains that it's subjective. Saying it's beautiful doesn't make you "right" and saying it's squiggles doesn't make me wrong. So it could be just a waste of paint for me.



That...was a joke right? Just to be sure. :smarty:



True, but that fact that he just sits there and does nothing, means that while he may be a supporter of free will, he is not benevolent.

Not a fan myself, but Van Gogh did move things in interesting directions. Regardless of the art itself, the influence on others isn't to be taken lightly.


I'm pretty sure the ''benevolent'' vs. ''free-will'' thing was addressed before. Sure he/she/it wants what's best for us and that means letting us make our own mistakes. Like the apt example of a parent, you can't coddle them forever.

Yeah... insanity can be looked at in two ways: as something that makes people violently insane, or something that gives a whole different perspective on life. i think that it's the choice on how you filter your insanity that matters in the end.

::blink:: I'll remember to tell the guy wandering the streets babbling to himself about the CIA implants in his skull that he should just choose to filter his insanity better.

nonono, i dont mean that... i just mean that if you have that kind of stuff in your head, you CAN use arts as therapy... you know? instead of being violent... wouldnt that work in the slightest? i mean, im probably wrong since im not a psychologist, but in theory, couldnt it work in some cases, as the previously stated van gough?

I don't think the parent analogy is apt, because the parent is not all powerful to stop his/her offspring's misdeeds. At the most he/she can tell them not to be bad, or whatever. They can't snap their fingers and correct all the misdeeds of their children, while god can.


About van Gogh, yeah, I guess the influence does count for something.

I think it is apt in the way that no child can grow up if you don't let them. They have to be free to make their own decisions and also have the real ramifications of said actions.

But that's the whole point. Many criminals don't experience the consequences of their actions, and die happy. He has every power to stop it, but does he? NO.

Again, that is the point. People are allowed to do what they want and supposedly get punished in the Great-Beyond.


The whole basis of the parent analogy is that people are allowed to make their own decisions whether for good or ill, and suffer in one way or another for it. Your decision nonetheless.

So the whole point of this thing depends on the existence of an afterlife?

I guess if you assume the existence of a god, you assume the existence of both retribution and the inherent afterlife in which it will be doled out.


That's the way I understand it.

Wait... This has nothing to do with the current subject in the argument but something kinda struck me.
If the bible stories are true and he created the world in 7 days.
If God is so All-powerfull, then why did he need to rest on the 7th day ? If he is a spiritual being he shouldn't get fatigue.

Same.

But that has no basis whatsoever. Alright, you can argue that god is the creator of the world, therefore we think god exists. While that presents a problem of it's own, atleast you can understand why they're saying that. Now why the hell do we want to hypothesise an afterlife? (pun intended :tongue:)

Dude, there's no point in asking these questions, because they'll conveniently be dumped in the "figurative" bin.

We didn't hypothesise an afterlife.


Scripture writers did. In fact, most religions have their own version of what happens after we all kick it.

And there is once again, no proof that such and such will happen after we kick it.

You've perhaps missed my point.


All my recent posts were expounding on my rationale behind the ''god=parent'' analogy.


Not on anything else.

I conceded that point, LOL.

I'm not sure if it's been posted but anti-semitism is in the bible, the ones I know are in the book of John. Now is God was real, and Jesus is God in the form of a Human then surely he wouldn't let Racism be put in his holy book, but at the time that was accepted as an all around fact about the Jewish, that they were below us. So when these people though up of the bible story (That's what I believe happened, they amde it up) They thought it would be okay to include that.

but is the bible really right or is the other religions true?

@ BDEX

There is so much bloodshed, racism and violence in the OT, that it's hard to understand how people can equate all this with a benevolent god. Sure, the "times were different" in the OT, but being omnipotent, you would think god could come up with a non-violent solution.


@ pigspark

There is no way to know.

Allrighty then... another attempt of mine shot down again @_@

It's not exactly "shot down" I'm just pointing out that while those points are kinda valid, they will never be accepted.