The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

I'm gonna second that part Loki said about us proving ourselves. And again, God's not looking for us to be perfect.

The same could be said about your "blatant series of assumptions" that God isn't omnipotent or omniscient or all loving. As far as I'm concerned, If God wasn't all Loving, there wouldn't be a purgatory, nor would there be a means for us to have our sins absolved, and Jesus wouldn't have happened. If God wasn't Omnipotent there wouldn't be a virgin Mary, parting of the sea, the plagues, passover, again Jesus. If God wasn't Omniscient, then there would be no prophets or scriptures fortelling of the comming of Christ.

And its not necessarily that if you're X branch of Christianity you're doomed to hell. Hell, even Jews and Muslims and Buddhists ect. (Minus Satanists) have a chance to go to heaven if they lead even half decent lives.

And then you also have your metally ill priests/people that tell you who goes to heaven and hell. That is not their call to make. Yes we can make our own judgements and take a guess. But it is not our place to judge others and their destination. The best we can do is make someone into a saint.

And remember just because thier a priest doesn't mean thier automatically high and mighty. Remember the Priests in NY that abused little Children? Just goes to show that even the people who have power to influence the people in their church aren't perfect.

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

Just because God throws out little miracles (Long old ones that haven't been proven, if you're gonna put the Atheist viewpoint in there) that means he 'loves' us? If he loved us, he wouldn't place millions upon millions of people in states of worldly agony, outside of any christian contact and therefore unable to be christian. I don't see how he ignores this entire majority of the world, only to place his incomprehensible LOVE for all of us in the hands of nothing but Europeans and branches of the Middle East in the form of several Prophets who go out to contradict themselves at every passing turn and preach horrible ethics of punishment that the Bible preaches...and...

You know, it just doesn't come off as some actual caring being. Or rather, not all loving.

[Archbio]

The same could be said about your "blatant series of assumptions" that God isn't omnipotent or omniscient or all loving. As far as I'm concerned, If God wasn't all Loving, there wouldn't be a purgatory, nor would there be a means for us to have our sins absolved, and Jesus wouldn't have happened. If God wasn't Omnipotent there wouldn't be a virgin Mary, parting of the sea, the plagues, passover, again Jesus. If God wasn't Omniscient, then there would be no prophets or scriptures fortelling of the comming of Christ.

Words starting with the prefix omni- or all- don't designate "kind of, sort of" concepts, like you're treating them.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Just wondering,

Due to the enormity of the Thread so far,
Due to the many questions and points being discussed,
Due to the no other threads being allowed regarding any religious topic,

Is there any possibility for Sub-Threads or something to be started within this thread? We have many points being discussed, and it could help people weed through the information and respond to the thoughts they wish, without reading the (1, 2, 3...9) 9 Pages we have accumulated as of now? I'm not sure about the logistics, but there are some interesting points and topics started and being discussed and I'm sure there are more that some may wish to bring up. (Like me, I'm so not going to start a new line when we have this much going...)

Your thoughts?

[Lockeownzj00]

Originally Posted by Nique

They could, but as you said - it would be an endless string of creative 'what ifs'.

And therefore inadequate to the scientific counterparts, which would be more grounded in reality.

Originally Posted by Nique

I'll leave evolution alone for now, becuase I am almost sure we talked about it in a ID vs. Evolution thread before.

I appreciate how you're approaching this thread as a discourse. As you said about Bible prophesy before--it will definitely come up, but we'll save it for later rather than muck it up now.

Originally Posted by Nique

No, becuase we aren't expressing the same idea. My use of 'faith' is that it is based on something tangible.

I merely meant in the sense that it shows the disparity between religious ideas and how inconsistent they are not even as a general framework, but from person to person. Another reason why they are so ineffectual.

Originally Posted by Nique

Religion as a concept cannot be blamed for the wrongs commited under it's name, anymore than Politcal ideaology can.

In what sense? Fascism can surely be blamed for discontent; so can National Socialism. Ideologies, ideas are not these listless wisps of nothing that float in the air, unassuming and unharmless. I am curious how it is that you assume that belief systems are less harmful than individual beliefs; belief in numbers can cause the greatest harm. Religion, especially due to its highly unstable and unpredictable "logical" nature, has been responsible for more mass hysteria and discord than I think is necessary.

And I didn't really compare religion to the KKK, but let's compare for a second, shall we? The KKK was/is one organization, in one country, which did some horrible thing and spread some horrible ideas for about 70 years. Religion has done horrible things and spread horrible ideas (if you wish me to give examples, ie dates and occurrences, i shall do my best) for quite likely thousands of years (even if this number fluctuates greatly, it's still significantly larger than 70, and spans the entire globe). I suppose it's hard to swallow that "Religion is worse than the KKK," but not in the sense that you might think. It's been around longer, and it's even more deadly because it's shielded in our public debate.

Originally Posted by Nique

The film seems to project the idea that the ideology of this religious group is actually socially beneficial.

I'll definitely give it a look. It goes without saying that if ideology can be socially harmful, ideology can also conversely be socially beneficial.

Originally Posted by Nique

It is the philosophy which drives the specific religion which makes it harmful or beneficial.

But this is exactly it. The argument we're making, or at least I'm making, Nique, is that it is an inherent facet of religion and 'faith' to be harmful or at the very least unhealthy (as Krylo said before--
"Now, while it's entirely POSSIBLE to subscribe to false worldviews without causing MUCH problem, that doesn't make it actually healthy.") Think about it. The only religions which are quite harmless and maybe even personally and socially beneficial are ones which are barely even religions at all. How about Buddhism? I've heard the phrase before, "Buddhism is the religion of no religion." So it's no surprise the only religion that really is an exception to the rule is 95% social and personal philosophy, 5% God.

I mean, think about what religion is: a system of belief purporting to know all the most elusive, absolute truths about the world (and it's happened to know these for thousands of years, yet somehow scientists are not keenly interested). Which will lead you to eternal salvation in a place called heaven, personal comfort, and edification with an invisible being. Other systems which purport the same thing are clearly wrong by virtue of the fact that they are not perscribing to your own. Isn't that in and of itself going to end up doing some harm, no matter what incarnation it crops up in?

Originally Posted by Bellsouth Minion

mainly because im nto going to read 7 pages since you guys write so god damn much....

I understand why you didn't read and such, but please do us the common courtesy in the future of avoiding this "tl;dr."

Originally Posted by Bellsouth Minion

I dont need the Bible to be realistic for me to belive that the 10 commendments can be good idea...

About half of the commandments are just rituals. The rest are good starting points, but nothing that anyone with common sense couldn't divine.

Originally Posted by TheKneumaticPnight

This is to say, if none of that made sense, that the laws of physics do change, in a sense.

I don't think in the way that matters. I'm not an expert on these scientific matters, unfortunately, but even these breaks all fall under the functions of the universe, no? Gravity and such being a subset of the main parameters. Shit, I need a good analogy. Haha.

Originally Posted by TheKneumaticPnight

(unless you’re a String Theorist, then you can believe that until the cows come home and people will respect you for it)

I'm curious as to your thoughts on String Theory--maybe you can PM them to me? I can't say I'm extremely well-educated on science, but in the past year or so I've been slowly educating myself, and the dichotomy between proponents and opponents of String Theory has always interested and, admittedly, confused me (I do own a copy of The Elegant Universe, though, which is on my list to read after a few others). So, penny fer ya thoughts.

Originally Posted by TheKneumaticPnight

The real issue there, is that all organizations suck, independently of the ideologies they’re founded on.

Again I present that the difference is that all those political organizations and ideologies are fallible, or at least considered so in the public arena. One can be publicly anti-communist or anti-liberalist or what have you, and we can, and have, waged clearcut wars against each other as a civilization by these delineations.

The problem is that there is no standard for criticism for religion. You really can't be that openly against religion; even worse because religion claims to have the word of God. Yet there are many different organizations who each claim to have the word, and what happens is a giant elephant in the room. No one wants to talk about it. No one knows how. How do you tell someone that their beliefs are unfounded when they can just keep pulling the God card? It's why it's so effective. It's why it's the singlemost deadly force in brainwashing people. So it just keeps eating us away from the inside, infecting all areas of our public debate and society, and in this sense, is distinct from the rest.

I'm still waiting to review the rest of Locke's paper (Hope it gets post too, it may be a nice read), but the rock will eventually not exist. Its existence is finite.

I think you missed the point of the analogy. There are two things to be learned from this:

1) The immediate image that is conjured in your head. The moment we lightning-bolt all sentience, the rock is still there, meaning, the universe exists outside of our own observation and consciousness.

2) The rock does still "exist" in the way I'm trying to convey. As I said earlier:

Originally Posted by Me, man

As human beings—finite creatures with beginnings and endings—we tend to personify our traits on the world at large. Pragmatically speaking, this is fine: in social contexts, things begin and end (relationships, friendships, jobs); in construction things begin and end (buildings are built and torn down); in art the physical piece is created and exists till destroyed; essentially every facet of our lives follow this pattern.

We come across a problem when we attempt to apply this logic to the universe. ‘The universe exists, and therefore, had to have begun, and must, at some point, end.’

But if we return to our original analogy of beginning and end in social context, we will realise where this leap in logic comes from: for a building doesn’t truly cease to exist, it merely changes states. The physical structure has become a pile of rubble and ash, and socially, the buildings purpose (whatever it may have been—hospital, office, etc.) has vanished. Socially, it is important to delineate the difference between friends and non-friends, but the relationship never truly ceased to exist; even if you were to sever ties with the person, you would be in a state of non-communication, rather than “nothing.”

The rock, as a philosophical point, still hasn't ended. It's merely changed states. And in this sense it makes my point.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

But if one can believe that something's existence and or creation cannot be explained by science, could there not also be a being that also exists outside of science's explanation?

"Could" is too lofty a word. I take the Logical Positivists' side and say that so little evidence and so great extrapolation is required that it is useless to even attempt to entertain the idea, and that even if it were theoretically possible in this minute way, it doesn't redeem the overall fantasized image of a benevolent God. There is "insufficient data at this time to make a meaningful answer." I'd prefer to stick to Occam again.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Science will always find a way to explain things. But who set the rules? Who caused this all to happen this way? The statistics of the universe working out so that life could exist, or that the current universe could exist the way it does are astronomical. (heh) Call it retreating if you must, labels help people understand things I guess.

I don't know if I agree with that. For one thing, some scientists say that Earth-like planets may not be as rare as we previously thought. Seth Shostak argues this very convincingly in his series "The Search for Intelligent Life." So any Earth-centric theory could potentially be bunk.

But even besides that; life wasn't this pristine, magical process that magically flowed into existence--rather, for billions of years, there was, for our purposes, cosmic junk floating around; Earth itself was a volcanic ball of...volcanoes for a long time. Or something like that.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

Science may know some answers, and may be able to answer why things exist the way they do, but some things may never be explained. That’s where religion can fill some holes. Of course, religion can also help things outside of science too... but that’s the other discussion.

I disagree. Religion is an artificial cement in these holes, not mending the theories, but shoddily patching them up so that they barely even hold water. The holes in science are being filled by science itself. Whether science will "solve everything evahh" I think is another debate. I'd be fine with having it but it throws off and distracts what we're talking about here. Even if science is incomplete, it corrects itself. I find "there's totally some guy up there" an inadequate filling of these scientific gaps in knowledge. Christopher Hitchens said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

B_real_shadows: Please explain to me how you arrived at these conclusions.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

However, we should do these things to bring others to faith. To that end, these acts can be considered selfless. Trying to attract others to saving faith.

For one thing, if you're helpnig them because you want them to understand Jesus, it still isn't that altruistic. But I can understand why it would be considered selfless from your point of view. Again we simply come down to the actual merits of either 'side.' I believe 'saving' people with your faith is still an insufficient reason compared to real reasons for humanism.

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

And how come anyone omnipotent can't be angry?

How can we seriously be debating this? In this quibble I hope to point out the patent ridiculousness of all that is theology. How can we possibly purport to know such things which are inherently unknowable?

*looking for Sam Harris quote here; spend half an hour trying to find it and couldn't; will insert when i find*

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

And then you also have your metally ill priests/people that tell you who goes to heaven and hell. That is not their call to make. Yes we can make our own judgements and take a guess. But it is not our place to judge others and their destination. The best we can do is make someone into a saint.

How is it your call to say it's not their call to make? Historically, traditionally speaking, they are only doing what's probably best; if anything, they are being more literal to the scripture.

To Loki: perhaps we can find a way to categorize our posts by topic so that the conversation can flow more fluidly?

So, I spent my entire morning on this (or afternoon, I woke up at 2). Hoorah!

[Marinan]

Originally Posted by Mesden

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

Just because God throws out little miracles (Long old ones that haven't been proven, if you're gonna put the Atheist viewpoint in there) that means he 'loves' us? If he loved us, he wouldn't place millions upon millions of people in states of worldly agony, outside of any christian contact and therefore unable to be christian. I don't see how he ignores this entire majority of the world, only to place his incomprehensible LOVE for all of us in the hands of nothing but Europeans and branches of the Middle East in the form of several Prophets who go out to contradict themselves at every passing turn and preach horrible ethics of punishment that the Bible preaches...and...

You know, it just doesn't come off as some actual caring being. Or rather, not all loving.

There's an old greek philosophical discussion detailing this. Stating that, since we, as humans, have no power, perhaps that is why the world is at it is. It is not that the gods have brought us suffering, but that as beings of power, they have certain restrictions on them that come only through being creatures that have any power at all.

In a Christian discussion, this could mean different things, as God sees that it would be an evil to not allow suffering in the world, because of the enormous positive long term effects that come from it. It would be wrong, however, for we mortals to act the same way, and as such, because we understand that we should not allow suffering, we understandably judge God in a mortal light. But as the Light of the World, his light shines brighter than our own.

[P-Sleazy]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Words starting with the prefix omni- or all- don't designate "kind of, sort of" concepts, like you're treating them.

Where am I treating them as "kind of, sort of"? The examples listed there in that quote of me you have are ways that god expresses those 3 characteristics. And those are just the ones off the top of my head. The Omniscient one is the one that gave me the most difficulty so if thats the one you're referring to as "kind of, sort of" then I may be able to give you that.

Originally Posted by Mesden

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

Just because God throws out little miracles (Long old ones that haven't been proven, if you're gonna put the Atheist viewpoint in there) that means he 'loves' us? If he loved us, he wouldn't place millions upon millions of people in states of worldly agony, outside of any christian contact and therefore unable to be christian. I don't see how he ignores this entire majority of the world, only to place his incomprehensible LOVE for all of us in the hands of nothing but Europeans and branches of the Middle East in the form of several Prophets who go out to contradict themselves at every passing turn and preach horrible ethics of punishment that the Bible preaches...and...

You know, it just doesn't come off as some actual caring being. Or rather, not all loving.

Firstly, in reference to the bold, if that was in reference to me, then I'm sorry. I did not and do not intend to come off like that.

Secondly, I don't beleive this is a sadistic game of God's. And he isn't sending people to hell if you're not christian. Nor did I say that he was. I have Jews listed who I'm fairly certain are not christain. Buddhists, Do they even have a god? (Don't mean to trample on any of you, I know a whole lot about this religion.) Muslims beleive in Jesus but don't think of him as the christ. So they COULD be a form of christians at a stretch. And I also wrote in etc to show that its not just those religions but most religions in general.

The reason why I excluded Satanists is because they acknowledge Jesus and God and Christianity and then go about destroying everything they stand for and worshipping Satan. And that, mind you, is a free will choice that they made themselves. Are they going to hell? It's probably more likely than someone in any secluded place on earth, who beleives in animalism or what have you. And yes, I know I sound like a total hypocrite here, so sue me.



To Locke:
I'm basing this off of Jesus giving the keys to the gates of heaven to St. Peter. And I speculate that St. Peter may have a say in who is let in, being the "gatekeeper" to heaven per say.

In addition, how is it someones call to make whose still living, doesn't know EVERYTHING about any one person like what they were thinking when someone did this, or know if someone truely feels remorse for any sins they've committed? Only someone who is omniscient could make one such call. A priest/bishop/pope/person, is not omniscient.

[Azisien]

I was going to open up this post with a "HOLY!" but that would have been a little too campy - teach me to disappear for 16ish hours. This is going in directions outside of what I've been commenting on, and since only a few have commented on my own remarks, I only have a few points:

Originally Posted by Kneu

Of course, the rest of that goes into String Theory, which is, itself, a philosophy, (or at best, mathematics) so let us not, I think, go down that road.

I would rearrange the two. The Nova program made it look nice and flashy for the layman to enjoy, but it is at its heart a mathematical and physical theory (actually, it's evolved to superstring theory, and then to M theory, and hasn't progressed a whole lot in recent years, not that a lot can BE done until we have technological means for testing its hypotheses). If you're interested in that kind of stuff I recommend his book, off which the show is based, by the same name, if you haven't read it already.

Science will always find a way to explain things. But who set the rules? Who caused this all to happen this way? The statistics of the universe working out so that life could exist, or that the current universe could exist the way it does are astronomical.

I don't know. But instead of fabricating a reason out of nowhere, I settle with 'I don't know." And if you're an optimist, you can tack on a 'yet' as well.

Call it retreating if you must, labels help people understand things I guess.

I would have used a better word to describe what I think it is, if I had thought of one...

Eventually science may find a way to explain why the moon orbits the Earth (Doh, they did, didn't they?). Perhaps some day we'll find out it isn't gravity.

Yeah, it's pretty downpat. And I'm not positive on the gravity bit. I mean, maybe, but we're pretty clear-cut in our understanding of general relativity, and the theory has been tested to death with undeniable accuracy. Our understanding (and maybe the name too?) of gravity will change, but the phenomenon is there and real, even if it's called fiddlebop in 4503.

Science is weird like that. They are constantly revising theories and laws because sometimes things happen outside of what is expected.

Yes, that IS science.

Arguing for Entropy here, science has that 'Law' of thermodynamics which has been proven enough for science to consider it pretty solid. There is also the 'fact' that all matter decays too, as listed in that Wikipedia article. Of course I would much rather link to a real science site but that was easier to find online, and it didn't seem all that far off from what the Indoctrination Center taught me. It seems pretty solid from what I gather, but I have faith that we humans or perhaps someone outside of our current scientific beliefs, will find a way to end it all a bit faster.

I am aware of the laws. Also, not all matter decay is fact, so I wouldn't label it as such at all. Hypothetical at this point. Allow me to try and clarify my earlier point in relation to the orange rock stuff real quick. Supposing the rock continued to decay and decay and decay over billions and trillions of years, its eventual endstate is, I believe, as a bunch of scattered photons, or energy. Change of states.

Now, my other point addresses the growing popularity of breaking the law. Hah, by which I mean either the second law of thermodynamics is frequently broken, or there are yet more conversions of energy occurring on scales and through mechanics we do not yet understand (sub-Planckian, for instance). It is this very mechanism of "creating" energy and matter that would have caused a big bang, and it's something that can be observed in modern particle accelerators (well, okay, those are two different mechanisms, but you can get matter "generation" from both).

Now even supposing the rock in its many changed states is somehow "gone" in trillions of years, this doesn't mean the universe is gone. But I'd like to end that vein now, because I don't even want to argue that the universe is infinite, even if I do find cyclic models of spacetime interesting!

How about supernatural like the existence of time prior to the Big Bang? How about supernatural as time near, or in, a black hole? Or even Quantum Strings? There are things Science can't explain yet, and I'm sure they will try to figure it out sometime if we last. Heck, eventually we may finally figure out the universe can be explained using a simple math equation, (or even just by a number *cough* 42 *cough*)

Science may know some answers, and may be able to answer why things exist the way they do, but some things may never be explained. That’s where religion can fill some holes. Of course, religion can also help things outside of science too... but that’s the other discussion.

My only response is to give it time. But this is a nice summary of my whole point about forms of theological "retreat." Yes, there are things science can't explain yet, and scientists will happily acknowledge they don't understand it yet too. I prefer this to making a bunch of stuff up, to fill in the blanks, while there are blanks.

Heck, and I think Pope may have mentioned something about the Sumarians who believed something similar, but I think it's more plausible a "God" figure is actually a hyperadvanced organism that reached a sort of ascension long before a bunch of cosmic dust mingled together and decided to form our solar system. If a lot of the stuff in the Bible is taken literally, and it is, even in this very thread, then the capabilities of God are not in any way omni. Even by modern physics, any feats he's performed are, in theory, possible.

For if an alien decided to study us, and learn about us, and take particular interest in the Iliad, this alien might decide to use something like holographic technology and by our senses, become Zeus. And this alien might use technology (technology even we currently possess) to cause a massive lightning bolt and travel down with it. And before you appears Zeus, King of the Gods! And at least one person in this thread would happily convert, even though this alien is no God. It might just be a teenager with some 84th century toys.

And that sir, is some damn enjoyable rambling right there. I needed a break.

[Loki, The Fallen]

We'll try that idea, here it goes.

As far as your arguments, I feel we have arrived at the statements of belief. Locke States:

I think you missed the point of the analogy. There are two things to be learned from this:

1) The immediate image that is conjured in your head. The moment we lightning-bolt all sentience, the rock is still there, meaning, the universe exists outside of our own observation and consciousness.

2) The rock does still "exist" in the way I'm trying to convey. As I said earlier:

I understand the point, and you understand mine:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen
But if one can believe that something's existence and or creation cannot be explained by science, could there not also be a being that also exists outside of science's explanation?


"Could" is too lofty a word. I take the Logical Positivists' side and say that so little evidence and so great extrapolation is required that it is useless to even attempt to entertain the idea, and that even if it were theoretically possible in this minute way, it doesn't redeem the overall fantasized image of a benevolent God. There is "insufficient data at this time to make a meaningful answer." I'd prefer to stick to Occam again.

We can say the same with other scientific theories. But maybe this leaves us at an impasse. If one can believe that one thing is infinite (which, as you said, is hard for us humans who have a 'finite' universe view) then I don't find it hard to believe that a being could exist with like properties. It is true there is insufficient data at this time. Perhaps someday we may find that out. For now, even if it seems odd to you, I'll stick to my belief.

I realize this may appear... what’s the nice word for it... Illogical, but when was the last time we humans were 100% logical? Guess I'll grab some books and start reading up on it more, and return to that point later.

More from your response

I don't know if I agree with that. For one thing, some scientists say that Earth-like planets may not be as rare as we previously thought. Seth Shostak argues this very convincingly in his series "The Search for Intelligent Life." So any Earth-centric theory could potentially be bunk.

Yes, there is a chance of another "Earth-Like" Planet, but statistically it’s kind of low. And I'm not saying there is no chance of other intelligent life out there, that’s a different topic. My point was the odds of things working out the way they do, in my opinion, point to an intelligent design. But I guess we have digressed slightly from the topic with this mini-discussion on creationism vs. ... um... scientific... something. I'll allow you to supply the name. I haven’t heard the new term for the constant universe existence theory. You have some interesting ideas.

I disagree. Religion is an artificial cement in these holes, not mending the theories, but shoddily patching them up so that they barely even hold water. The holes in science are being filled by science itself. Whether science will "solve everything evahh" I think is another debate. I'd be fine with having it but it throws off and distracts what we're talking about here. Even if science is incomplete, it corrects itself. I find "there's totally some guy up there" an inadequate filling of these scientific gaps in knowledge. Christopher Hitchens said, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

A statement of opinion. Science can correct itself, but you will find just as many people who won’t agree on a 'Scientific fact' as you'll find people who will argue over 'Religious Truth'. Examples? There is a group of Liberal Christians who can't believe that Conservative Christians are real, just like there are scientists arguing over Global Warming being a man-made problem vs. natural cycles vs. sun spots. They still argue a lot. (Just examples of arguments here, not trying to change subjects.) Eventually all sides may come to an answer, the likely hood of it being found on an internet forum is kind of remote. It does make for a good conversation!

Possibly another topic that we can start in here... Based on your quote-

But if we return to our original analogy of beginning and end in social context, we will realize where this leap in logic comes from: for a building doesn’t truly cease to exist, it merely changes states. The physical structure has become a pile of rubble and ash, and socially, the buildings purpose (whatever it may have been—hospital, office, etc.) has vanished. Socially, it is important to delineate the difference between friends and non-friends, but the relationship never truly ceased to exist; even if you were to sever ties with the person, you would be in a state of non-communication, rather than “nothing.”

That appears to be a good argument for people experiencing an after-life. As matter simply changes states, so could energy? Maybe we can call that topic 7ish?

And for Mesden's issue with-

And all of this comes up to as why the hell would an all loving creator place us in this game of his? I mean, I don't know about you, but that sounds ungratefully bigotted and that he is doing this for his amusement or for, what, I have no clue! It's sadistic, plain and simple.

The book explains it pretty well in the story of Job. According to it, we could not possibly understand his motives, what drives him. We can speculate all we wish, but perhaps we'll never understand him. Luckily, we don't have to.

Guess I'll check back later, as its quittin' time. Look forward to catching up to another 19 pages tomorrow!

--Edited because I can't believe I misspelled Locke's name...--

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Marinan

There's an old greek philosophical discussion detailing this. Stating that, since we, as humans, have no power, perhaps that is why the world is at it is. It is not that the gods have brought us suffering, but that as beings of power, they have certain restrictions on them that come only through being creatures that have any power at all.

Again, assuming that god has any form of restriction is inherently contradicting that god is god.

I don't know how I can make that clearer.

In a Christian discussion, this could mean different things, as God sees that it would be an evil to not allow suffering in the world, because of the enormous positive long term effects that come from it. It would be wrong, however, for we mortals to act the same way, and as such, because we understand that we should not allow suffering, we understandably judge God in a mortal light. But as the Light of the World, his light shines brighter than our own.

So, it's okay for God to allow and inflict suffering because God is God?

I really can't believe the fallback of "We're mortal so we don't know." If that's how it works, then that's just saying "I believe in god on Faith alone" -- blindness does not bode well for me.

Originally Posted by B_Real_Shadows

Firstly, in reference to the bold, if that was in reference to me, then I'm sorry. I did not and do not intend to come off like that. I have Jews listed who I'm fairly certain are not christain. Buddhists, Do they even have a god? (Don't mean to trample on any of you, I know a whole lot about this religion.)

No, I was saying it was awfully bigotted to call preach that God is all loving in that context. Not you.

Secondly, I don't beleive this is a sadistic game of God's. And he isn't sending people to hell if you're not christian.

Actually, I'm fairly sure that The Bible says you get to go to hell if you don't accept God and Jesus.

I haven't read it in a long while (And when I did, it disgusted me), but saying that...defeats the purpose of believing in God as some kind of positive thing, and places it as a neutral point.

Muslims beleive in Jesus but don't think of him as the christ. So they COULD be a form of christians at a stretch.

I'm pretty sure you can't 'stretch' being a Christian, when being a Christian means you believe in Christ as your Messiah -- even though you happen to believe in this guy Mohammed as your Messiah.

That would be, oh, worshipping a false idol for the entirety of your existance, which is one of those Commandments.

And to end -- I noticed no one really touched on the entire latter paragraph of what I said, though they were happy to answer the slightly easier part of it with their own view of God's Mysterious workings.

Edit--

Originally Posted by Loki, no not the Atheist one, that other one

The book explains it pretty well in the story of Job. According to it, we could not possibly understand his motives, what drives him. We can speculate all we wish, but perhaps we'll never understand him. Luckily, we don't have to.

Again, that just can't fly. He's a sadist because it works for him! No, I'm sorry, a loving God would not torture his devout servant just to prove a point to SATAN that his people are followers. That sounds like a petty God trying to prove a point for the sake of proving a point -- by RUINING THIS MAN'S LIFE.

Free Will to live your life as you choose doesn't matter when God feels like makin' his point to make a point, neh?

I don't see that as all loving -- I don't really think you could 'stretch' that either.

[Archbio]

Where am I treating them as "kind of, sort of"? The examples listed there in that quote of me you have are ways that god expresses those 3 characteristics.

No, they're not.

Your examples for omnipotence expresses that god is powerful. Powerful compared to the natural order, yes, but not all-powerful. Considering that in this framework, god is responsible for the natural order, it doesn't even approach being significative beyond "god has supernatural power".

Your examples for all-love are even more "sort of", and have the same weakness. All it expresses is that god isn't all-hating: god uses some of his power (assuming omnipotence here), not all, to save humanity. The rest being used to damn humanity. That's the crux of the argument that you supposedly address.

The omniscience examples are the worst: god (who can be mistaken for omnipotent) can predict what he's going to do and relay that information. That doesn't express anything.

Now, to be fair, it's doubtful that anything can be taken as an expression of omnipotence, it can only be measured against other characteristics. Omnipotence is purely abstract and causes problems with logic as we know it by itself ("Can God create something even he can't lift?"). Omniscience might not be possible to express, either.

The argument stands: logically, the god as described by christian tradition can't logically be omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving at the same time.