God Logic

[jinxed_07]

The way I've always seen it, it's rather illogical to try and disprove God by the assumption that he exists and that the Bible is true, because the contradictions and historical inaccuracies are so glaring. There are tons of completely reasonable scientific ways of disproving the existence of God, so why are we stuck with paradoxical hypotheticals?

How can you try to disprove God with science, when God created the laws of science and he doesn't have to play by those rules either?

------------------------

a. Omnibenevolence is pretty much ruled out seeing how God killed, oh, about 2,391,421 people in the Bible. He is also described as being a jealous God, which doesn’t seem to be a beneficial emotion, nor does it make any sense. I can see why he wouldn’t want people to worship idols, but why should He be jealous? He knows they aren’t real. I think Jesus is omnibenevolent, but there could be complications with the “three-in-one” theory here.

First of all, God is "jealous" for our hearts. He deeply and passionately wants us to love him as he loves us. The bible never said God gets jealous when we worship idols alone.
Second of all, I would like to say that we do have freewill, and God gave us freewill because no one can be forced into truly loving someone, and he created us so that he could love us and we could him back. I already explained some time ago. This also could be used as an argument to many of your statements.
Third of all, your over thinking the "three-in-one" theory here. Jesus is a sense, literally God but in a similar way not. Imagine this: First there was God, and the "Holy Ghost" is a copied instance of 'God' that fills us at a certain time, only it isn't literally God, it's more like an instance of his spirit. And Jesus is effectively a copy of God's spirit, so while, in a sense, "The father(God), the son(Jesus), and the Holy spirit" are the same thing, they are not. (Though, the holy spirit is obviously bond to God, while Jesus isn't literally bound to God.) The three-in-one thing is something very complicated, and trying to fully understand it is like trying to imagine heaven.

[capt_weasle]

First of all, God is "jealous" for our hearts. He deeply and passionately wants us to love him as he loves us. The bible never said God gets jealous when we worship idols alone.

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5).

Second of all, I would like to say that we do have freewill, and God gave us freewill because no one can be forced into truly loving someone, and he created us so that he could love us and we could him back. I already explained some time ago. This also could be used as an argument to many of your statements.

I find it odd that it is assumed God only gave us freewill so we can love him back on our own accord, especially considering the wide array of human emotions and the limited knowledge we have of any given deity. "Here, I'm going to put you on the Earth, let you do whatever you want, give no explanation as to why you're here, never supply any concrete evidence for my existence, let evil roam around in the world* for no particular reason, put you through hell during your life because two people screwed up a long time ago so now you get the punishment too, and hope that by the end of it, after all the crap you've gone through, you really do love me. Not because there isn't any sound reason to do so, but really because you think I think you should."

*After giving it some thought, it seems that God did create evil: Timmy is going to enter his home-made bike into a big race. Timmy is perfectly able to build the perfect bike, but for whatever reason, he intentionally puts defects into the bike because, hey, putting the perfect bike into the race is too easy a win and would be boring, right? Better to build defects into it and let it win because oy really wants to. Even though I know it will fall apart in the middle of the race.

Third of all, your over thinking the "three-in-one" theory here. Jesus is a sense, literally God but in a similar way not. Imagine this: First there was God, and the "Holy Ghost" is a copied instance of 'God' that fills us at a certain time, only it isn't literally God, it's more like an instance of his spirit. And Jesus is effectively a copy of God's spirit, so while, in a sense, "The father(God), the son(Jesus), and the Holy spirit" are the same thing, they are not. (Though, the holy spirit is obviously bond to God, while Jesus isn't literally bound to God.) The three-in-one thing is something very complicated, and trying to fully understand it is like trying to imagine heaven.

There's this thing, that kind of is like this other thing, but it really isn't. I would try and explain it, but it's just *way* too complicated. Like imagining a new color. Or something. (I have no idea why you decided to try and explain the God-head to me. First, you're explanation went absolutely no where. Second, I already understand the concept, which is why I said in my previous post that it was something that could stand against my own arguments)

[/pseudosuki]

[otters]

God gave us freewill

Did not. He knew exactly what was going to happen when he made Person X make Decision Y. Free will by God is bullshit.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

God gave us freewill

Did not. He knew exactly what was going to happen when he made Person X make Decision Y. Free will by God is bullshit.

He gave us Free Will just after he made a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it (and then ate it).

[jean-luc]

The contradictory statements you pulled from the Bible can be explained by the fact that the books were written by different people, and in no way reflect God's "will", if he has one. Additionally, the Old and New Testaments disagree with each other quite a lot, probably because they were written at different time periods. So using the Bible as a source in a debate about religion is inherently incorrect.

Remember the point that, doctrinally, the New Testament is authoritative over the old testament. When the two contradict, the New Testament is the correct one. That said, they contradict far less than most people think.

And, keep in mind that the bible is rife with human error, mostly by the various translators and transcribers.

---

Call me a heathen, but as a theist I have no problem with the idea that God is not perfectly omniscient or perfectly benevolent. I think that God is a person, like us. It seems certain that He has much more knowledge and power than we do, but is He really perfect? I doubt it. Just far better than us, so much so that at casual inspection it may seem to be perfection.

I also thoroughly believe that God is bound by the same laws of nature that we are, He simply has a more complete understanding of those laws, which grants Him a greater ability to apply them.

If you look at it this way, the realms of science and religion are not at all opposed. It is under this reasoning that I think many scientists come to be theists.

[otters~1]

The contradictory statements you pulled from the Bible can be explained by the fact that the books were written by different people, and in no way reflect God's "will", if he has one. Additionally, the Old and New Testaments disagree with each other quite a lot, probably because they were written at different time periods. So using the Bible as a source in a debate about religion is inherently incorrect.

Remember the point that, doctrinally, the New Testament is authoritative over the old testament.

I didn't know this, never having been indoctrinated. You really ought to come 'round here more often; I've forgotten and cbf to read up on what we were talking about before.

And, keep in mind that the bible is rife with human error, mostly by the various translators and transcribers.

Another reason it shouldn't be used as a source, surely?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

the realms of science and religion are not at all opposed.

I really hate how often this is thrown around.
Look, yes, we all know -- science doesn't address the supernatural (or in your case, so technologically advanced that it may as well be supernatural to us), and religion has no explicit condemnation of science or the scientific method.
In application, they're on different tracks entirely.

But ideologically, they're so explicitly opposed to each other that it'd take someone totally unfamiliar with one or both to expect the two to coexist peacefully, at least if intellectual honesty is to be maintained.
I feel really dumb needing to write this out, but...
Using the scientific method, you only believe things when you are convinced they must be true, based on rigorous analysis of evidence gathered.
Religion, on the other hand, is based on faith, which is making a virtue out of refusing to find evidence, and in fact of holding on to a totally baseless conclusion even while an opposing case is built against it.

So in short, the scientific method encourages you to believe things that have >> 0 evidence, and religion encourages you to believe things that have <= 0 evidence. You really don't get more diametrically opposed than that.
...ideologically, anyway. It shouldn't come as any surprise that a mode of inquiry into reality fails to touch the land of unicorn wishes and leprechaun farts. Or, y'know, whatever sci-fi fantasy you've contrived around the Christian sect your parents raised you to be, because that probably makes any sense whatsoever. You're a smart dude; I'm sure you've got it figured out.

It is under this reasoning that I think many scientists come to be theists.

Hysterical.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some delicious beer to finish.

[lord_day]

Call me a heathen, but as a theist I have no problem with the idea that God is not perfectly omniscient or perfectly benevolent. I think that God is a person, like us. It seems certain that He has much more knowledge and power than we do, but is He really perfect? I doubt it. Just far better than us, so much so that at casual inspection it may seem to be perfection.

I also thoroughly believe that God is bound by the same laws of nature that we are, He simply has a more complete understanding of those laws, which grants Him a greater ability to apply them.

If you look at it this way, the realms of science and religion are not at all opposed. It is under this reasoning that I think many scientists come to be theists.

Do you not see this as you making up facts about your god to justify what you see as a flaw in the deity that has been presented to you? These sort of ad hoc theories leave me in total wonder...

[jean-luc]

the realms of science and religion are not at all opposed.

But ideologically, they're so explicitly opposed to each other that it'd take someone totally unfamiliar with one or both to expect the two to coexist peacefully, at least if intellectual honesty is to be maintained.
I feel really dumb needing to write this out, but...
Using the scientific method, you only believe things when you are convinced they must be true, based on rigorous analysis of evidence gathered.
Religion, on the other hand, is based on faith, which is making a virtue out of refusing to find evidence, and in fact of holding on to a totally baseless conclusion even while an opposing case is built against it.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that inquiry-based and faith-based systems of belief can coexist, provided they do not provide concepts that contradict each other. I don't see that they ever do so. Trouble is, since the bible is not necessarily a reliable source anymore, I think dependency on continuing revelation is vital. A lot of Christians don't believe in continuing revelation, though, and that leaves them in the dark, when it comes to reconciling disagreements.

Do you not see this as you making up facts about your god to justify what you see as a flaw in the deity that has been presented to you? These sort of ad hoc theories leave me in total wonder...

You could definitely argue that this is the case. You could also, though, argue that a 'perfect' god is a system of facts made up by people seeking for stability in an unstable world. In fact, this is what virtually all atheists argue. It turns out that faith is a very difficult thing to impart to others.

In any case, I find the concept of perfection to be unreasonable. My system of reasons why incorporates both philosophy and doctrine inherited from my youth that I believe to be true.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that inquiry-based and faith-based systems of belief can coexist, provided they do not provide concepts that contradict each other.

If you liken deriving conclusions to following a corridor that branches, inquiry and faith-based methods choose to go opposite directions. If they happen to draw the same conclusion about any particular issue, it is by pure accident. And should they happen to disagree, it is immediately an irreconcilable difference.

I don't see that they ever do so.

If this is true, you must have been making a concerted effort to avoid awareness of any social issues on all of local, national, and international levels, besides all of American and European history for the last several centuries.
Religion has historically gone out of its way to stifle scientific progress with violence, specifically because the scientific method was addressing the same concerns as religious dogma but were drawing different conclusions. This continues today about any social issue imaginable, from the focus of biomedical research to what we teach our children in schools.
I don't know what kind of fantasy universe you live in where inquiry-based and faith-based systems never clash, but it sure as hell isn't where the rest of us are living.

Trouble is, since the bible is not necessarily a reliable source anymore, I think dependency on continuing revelation is vital. A lot of Christians don't believe in continuing revelation, though, and that leaves them in the dark, when it comes to reconciling disagreements.

Or more accurately, it's problematic because they believe Christian dogma on faith in the first place, and they therefore have trouble reconciling it with fucking anything else.

[otters~1]

Religion has historically gone out of its way to stifle scientific progress with violence, specifically because the scientific method was addressing the same concerns as religious dogma but were drawing different conclusions. This continues today about any social issue imaginable, from the focus of biomedical research to what we teach our children in schools.
I don't know what kind of fantasy universe you live in where inquiry-based and faith-based systems never clash, but it sure as hell isn't where the rest of us are living.

Right. Doctrinally, faith and science can perhaps coexist, at least if you don't look too closely. But practically, they can't and never have.

[jean-luc]

I don't see that they ever do so.

If this is true, you must have been making a concerted effort to avoid awareness of any social issues on all of local, national, and international levels, besides all of American and European history for the last several centuries.
Religion has historically gone out of its way to stifle scientific progress with violence, specifically because the scientific method was addressing the same concerns as religious dogma but were drawing different conclusions. This continues today about any social issue imaginable, from the focus of biomedical research to what we teach our children in schools.
I don't know what kind of fantasy universe you live in where inquiry-based and faith-based systems never clash, but it sure as hell isn't where the rest of us are living.

You've misunderstood me on that. I meant that, by my interpretation, they don't. I certainly can't speak for anyone else, and they do clash in the real world continuously. This is the result of the same sort of dogmatic close-mindedness that I think I have just been accused of, but that I reject.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I meant that, by my interpretation, they don't. I certainly can't speak for anyone else, and they do clash in the real world continuously. This is the result of the same sort of dogmatic close-mindedness that I think I have just been accused of, but that I reject.

So you're saying that in your own personal views, those you have accepted based on scientific evidence and those derived from your faith do not overlap?
That's hardly surprising. I don't doubt that most people are like that. For example, the views an militant Islamic extremist has from those two sources have zero overlap, as well. Any knowledge he may have of genetics, sociology, and anthropology probably fit neatly along side his faith-based misogyny.