You realize, of course, that the argument will be made that since YHWH is the originator of the innate moral code, he will be able to violate it and still not be considered immoral. It's a bit of a semantic trap.

Of course, I could never follow a diety that wouldn't show mercy to someone like Jephthah. (See: Judges 30-40). Sure, the guy made a vow, but an all-powerful diety that cares about his creations could have (and, at least in my opinion, should have) stepped in and let him off the hook. Guess that only worked for Abraham.

YHWH was capricious at best and sadistic at worst.

Edit: As for an example of contradiction, I'd really like to know what Jesus did right after his baptism. Did he run off into the wilderness for his temptation by Satan (as in Mark 1:12)? Or did he gather some followers and attend a wedding (as in John 1:40-2:1)?

See that's why I just believe what I believe. So many different peoples' interpretations of what's right and what isn't...

there is no ONE right answer.

Why do I get told I'm going to hell when Christianity believes in Hell, but let's say Buhddism doesn't?

I really just don't think it's fair to anyone to tell them that one religion is better or more correct than any one else.

((My two cents, not saying anyone here has done anything towards me, just that's what I think))

:)

Just my personal opinion... I'd like to think that I'm in complete control of my life, and no other power can change the course of it in any way. And if something negative happens, I don't sit by my bed and ask for someone else to make it better, I try to fix it or get through it. I don't believe god(s) had anything to do with creation a vaccination for small pox or polio, or that they had anything to do with the plague or HIV/AIDS. I'm sure something that is 'all-powerful' could have prevented the holocaust, or any other disaster.

There's also the question of which religion to follow if you believe in a personal God. Do you follow Vishnu? Buddha? Yahweh? Or Jupiter? If you're Christian, and it turns out the Greeks were right all along, Hades is going to be pissed at you when you end up at Erebus/Tartarus.

I can't quite agree with you on that one. We may not currently have the tools to answer it (and may never) but there is one right answer.

Unless you're meaning that any sort of metaphysical/supernatural claim is equal because they're all baseless...then I'll agree with that. There is as much evidence supporting the claims of the adherents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is evidence supporting the claims of Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Personally? I don't care if you believe there are tiny little leprechauns living in your garage as long as you're not trying to influence public policy. Once you start getting into the realm of politics, please check your superstitions at the door.

just wanted to point out Buddha is not a god in fact the whole Buddhist's religion has no higher power. Thus its basis of appeal to me :D just wanted to clarify.

It seems that most of FF leans toward the agnostic side.

My argument is whether or not it can be proven that there is a deity of sorts, or not. Geological records of the Earth indicate that Earth was formed billions of years ago—along with fossilized remains of organisms that no longer exist today. The Bible says that the Earth was created in seven days. This can be argued as impossible, since it's evident that many billions of years of have elapsed before we have gotten to this day and age.

Yet, Christianity has its own argument. The Lomonosov-Lavoisier law (AKA the Law of Conservation of Matter/Mass) states that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed." The Big Bang theory, as advocated by many scientists, has one key flaw: Where did this matter come from? If an enormous explosion occurred, it would certainly blast matter the way the universe is currently expanding. However, no good explanation for where the matter came from exists.

I will say that I advocate the Big Bang theory over Creationism, despite the flaws. The concept of an insubstantial entity creating a world seems far more far-fetched. No offense.

There is one question that I have not seen satisfactorily answered in any of the forums I have seen for a discussion of this sort.

If God is omnipotent, can he make an object so heavy he cannot lift?

The answers I have seen so far are:

1. That is an illogical question and a contradiction. It's like asking if god can make a circle with corners, or other impossibilities.

2. God is beyond logic.

3. God can only do what is logically possible.

Rebuttals:

1. It's only a contradiction for an omnipotent being. None of us can make a circle with corners because that is a contradiction in terms. But each and every one of us can make an object so heavy that we cannot lift it. Does that make me more powerful than god? So that's in effect saying, "God can do anything, except that which he cannot do", which is a waste of words.

2. :rolleyes: "God is beyond logic, and can therefore not be discussed using logic." Even this statement is derived by simple logic. Logic drips through every implication, and every inference made. Nothing "transcends" logic.

3. Yeah, and making a whole universe out of nothing is really logical. See rebuttal 1 as well.

If you have any other replies to this, please do post.

Also, god cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. It's explained by this handy little verse I picked up from "The God Delusion":

Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

Any input on this would also be appreciated.

And of course if anybody would care to answer the "What created God?" question, that would be nice too.

God can do anything. Therefore he can create something he cannot lift while being able to lift it. Don't ask how. It will blow your mind.

I see no correlation between that sentence being logical and the executive conclusion that every implication and inference is also logical + that nothing transcends logic. Maybe we just haven't found that something yet :uhoh:


Some paradoxes themselves seem to defy logic until the sometimes obvious solution presents itself.


See ''God can do anything.''

Who says he/she/it can't see forever into the future and have the ability to change his/her/its mind? Maybe there is no need to change the original decision if it's always the right one in the first place?

See ''Wasn't God always there?''


If you are a believer in a religion, I'd think that science need not necessarily apply. Deities and religion are a convenient way of explaining everything in a neat package that is acceptable and fair while reducing the world to terms that are easy to accept. Anything and everything to a true believer can be explained by "Because it is.'' an argument that is of course unsatisfactory to skeptics.


I'm not a believer in any religion myself. There might be a God, there might not. I personally fail to see the point over all the arguing back and forth over something that might forever remain unresolved and that seems to have
no clear impact on my life.


Edit: I'd have voted for ''There may be a god/gods, but so far there is no proof of their existence.'' but it doesn't really fit for me. I'd be more ''''There may be a god/gods, but who the heck really knows?''

The very word makes religion what it is.

Belief.

Whether a person chooses to follow a faith or not, Most religions demand:

Belief.

To fall back willingly and unquestioningly toward something you can neither question nor explain, It is called

Belief.

If someone wholeheartedly believes in buddha, So be it.

Personally, I'd rather believe in nothing and be wrong then believe in SOMETHING and be wrong.