That is a cop-out. Just read your sentence again and see if it makes any sense.

I don't see how there can be anything that can transcend logic. Maybe we haven't seen it yet? And maybe we also haven't seen a bar of chocolate do the salsa of its own volition. That doesn't mean we'll never see it does it? :rolleyes: Even this is a cop out.

Seen.

The meaning of the verse is this:
God knows the future.
So god knows what decision he/she/it is going to take in the future, for sure.
But since god can do anything, can he/she/it change that decision? If yes, he/she/it is not omniscient, because he/she/it did not know forever that he/she/it was going to pick that choice. If not, he/she/it is not omnipotent.

Irrelevant.

Wasn't the universe always there? Yes, yes, I know what's coming. We know there was a definite time of creation for the universe, or rather, a definite moment in which a singularity expanded, and the universe was formed, and therefore the universe could not have existed forever. But that singularity could most definitely have existed forever. Better than a sky-fairy who snaps his fingers and creates a billion stars, uncountable planets, asteroids, and all of existence in 6 days, 5000 years ago.

Don't you find something wrong with that? "Because it is." That isn't even an explanation. A rapist could say, "I raped her because I did." That isn't even an explanation. People instead of trying to think rationally, believe in a "god" who simultaneously keeps a check on the orbits of planets, on the hydrogen consumption of stars, on the revolution of each and every single electron, because they cannot think of a better explanation for the universe which is so "complex". How hypocritical is that? Exactly how complex would god need to be to do all this?

The point of arguing (atleast that point as it seems to me) is to rid the world of this delusion. Not everybody believes in the same sky fairy, and decide to fight over whose sky fairy is better. My uncle lost his life in the Muslim vs Hindu fights in Mumbai in 1993. It's positively disgusting. My dream is a world without religion, a world which can take a step back and think rationally, and thereby understand each other a LOT better.

Big Wordso.o
did not read whole thread
I was a catholic, and so is my family, but as i grow up and now that i can think for myself, i honestly don't know. I'd like to think theres a god, i'd like to think you go somewhere after death. That is why death is one of my greatest fears.

I was replying from the point of view of someone who might be termed a literal believer. I don't hold those views myself so I replied with what I hoped was a somewhat parodying tone, if you can use the word 'tone' in the context of the internet. You might have missed it.


My point in the end is that I don't believe that logic can be used to deny or prove the existence of a god, one way or the other. A Catholic could point to the Bible as evidence and the Scientist can point at dark matter, and neither of them would be wrong.


Religion doesn't have to be a dividing force, though of course there are thousands of examples of it being so. Blame instead the practicioners who foster intolerance.

Sorry. You sounded pretty serious.

But it can be used to estimate the probability of either option, and frankly, the odds aren't in god's favour. The Bible isn't "evidence". Where is the evidence that Jesus walked on water? Where is the evidence that god spoke to Moses?

Religion does not have to be a dividing force, but the point is, as long as there are differences in the stories (which are myths) put forward by them, there will be violence. There is no difference between them and a savage cult at that point.

As has been mentioned, belief is the only thing that holds it together. Depending on the individual, it will override anything that is put against it. Some things can't really be changed.


I'd say probability is a moot point. Even if the odds of there being a omniscient/omnipotent being were 0.00000000000000000 ad infinitum....1 % it wouldn't invalidate or prove if there was actually one or not. I think that science is open to change which is one of it's fundamental strengths, of course, change that is verified by evidence. Who knows, they might find something that credits the existence of a god.


There are those who hold the belief that the Bible is to be taken figuratively, not literally. A lot of things would make more sense then, but that's kinda moot. Religious books were written in a different time and place, the modern versions of religions have changed to adapt with the times. Example-the Bible mentions that pork and wearing clothes of different (materials?) was forbidden, but that's usually not beholden to now.


There will always be violence due to differences and intolerance. That is true. However, I think that the majority of religiously-linked violence wasn't due to a clash of belief itself, but that religion was used as the excuse and front for the violent action. The religions/gods themselves are full of contradictions but you have to take the way it is practiced not preached into account. Most religions on a whole advocate understanding (selective as it may be) and tolerance but it is rarely practiced.


(hooray for barely-readable response)

Science and reason deals in probabilities. You can't prove that YOU exist to a probability of 100%.


You must not know many Orthodox Jews. The dietary laws are very much adhered to. I can't speak to the level that dietary halal is kept, but that fact that McDonald's in Dearborn, Michigan is serving halal McNuggets suggests the demand was enough to warrant the change.

Existence is subjective. Of course, I can't prove anything =[


I meant the part about the refinment and change within adherence to doctrine to refer to Christianity in particular, which is why I used the Bible as an example, rather than the Qur'an or the Torah. Halal is of course strictly followed here, all the McDonalds have a nice certificate to prove it.

And that is exactly what is so irrational.

A:"Your mother is dead."

B:"I believe she's alive."

C:"No, she's dead." *shows dead body*

D:"I still believe she's dead."

While this analogy may seem false because in this case, it has been definitively proven that A's mother is dead, but it has not been proven that god does not exist, but I'm using this analogy for religion. People cannot walk on water. Women cannot have virgin births. A person cannot be transplanted with the head of an elephant. And yet, they let their senses escape them, and keep on "believing". It's inhuman really.



Similarly, you cannot invalidate or prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Invisible Pink Unicorns. That does not mean they exist.



Achilles was dipped in a river to make him all but invincible, but that's a myth. Apollo turned the crow black, but that's a myth. The sun is actually a chariot, but that's a myth. But a woman conceives while being a virgin, and everybody believes. A god creates an army out of his hair, and everybody believes.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Henry Roberts

I think the above quote is just magical in its simplicity. Just think. Zeus was not real, but Yahweh was. Jupiter was a myth, but Allah exists. Why?

As for the bible being taken figuratively, who is to decide how it is going to be interpreted? It makes for a nice read, but it should be treated as nothing more than fiction.


I agree. Except on the what to take into account bit. This is a question that I haven't answered for myself yet: Should a religion be judged by the teachings of its books, or the end result of the preaching on the majority of its followers?

The parts of the Bible that refer to dietary laws and fabrics and such were in the Old Testament and the covenant with Abraham. Those became null through the new covenant established by Jesus. It's internally consistent within the faith as to why they don't follow the rules from the Jewish books.

Of course, I'm keeping in mind that you're merely playing advocatus diaboli here.