And the short answer is: If you accept the premise that God is imperfect then it follows that his doctrine is also quite possibly imperfect, does it not? An imperfect being is not infallible and may produce errors. Now in this scenario man gets to question God's word, his edicts and his doctrine (or parts of it)and even his authority, the whole god power thang collapses and anarchy rules the day. Not a pretty picture for the creationists (you know, those power mongers). hehe.
Theist sheep love to claim that God is an all-just God AND an all-merciful God. But.... An all-just God must treat every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves. (by definition) and An all-merciful God must treat every offender with less severity than he/she deserves. (also by definition) However..... It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to also be an all-merciful judge (and the reverse is also true) LOGIC MY FRIENDS! LOGIC ALLOWS (NO, DEMANDS!) ONE TO QUESTION *HIM* & EVEN *HIS* EXISTENCE!!!
Faster has essentially captured the heart of the problem if the god of religion is shown to be imperfect. Since insurmountable problems - ie, outright contradictions - are inherently present in any definition of god that requires him to be perfect: omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnibenevolent (all-good), we have to - we are compelled by the weight of evidence - to assume that gods edicts are also imperfect. Therefore, I say, let's bring God to the bargaining table. WHy would god want to do this? well, we know from the bible that he's a toucy fellow, who gets jealous if men worship other gods, and who really wants man to like him and to worship him. at this point in time, god is not getting all the love and worship he could be. part of the problem is that the deal he offers to entice people to worship him is pretty weak. i mean, right now, if you believe in god what to do you get? you get to see him when you die - WOW! that's not my idea of a reward for a life time of dedication. you get saved from going to hell? not really, that's just a cheap threat god makes. maybe he's never heard of the saying "you attract more flies with honey than with vinigar". it's just a piss weak offer. Come on God. Come to the negotiating table. Let's work out a mutually beneficial deal. you change your rules, and i guarantee you more and more people will CHOOSE to come and worship, rather than feel forced to. here's some ideas for you to think about god: - first thing you need to change. get rid of that antiquated bible. it's completely outlived its useful life. - tell the real story of how the universe started. - fill your new holy book with useful information on how man can improve the condition of his life, and increase his (and others) level of happiness. - get yourself a good editor that will make sure your new holy book is free from the contradictions that plague the bible. (you'll get a whole lot more respectability). - don't come across as such a stern fucker. - stop all the senseless taking of lives. that's just a start. think about it god. your people deserve better!
Faster, There is a simpler version of this: Axiom: God is omnipotent [assumed certainly by Christians and the like] Question: Can he build a rock that even he can't lift? If he can build that rock, then he can't lift it and is not omnipotent. if he cannot build that rock, well... nitro
this is something everyone probably already knows, but i figured i'd just point it out anyway..heh DEATH IS ONLY A BAD THING WHILE YOU'RE ALIVE. while we're alive, we want to keep living and we don't want to die. but once the instant of death occurs, there's no more worrying about it. you won't miss being alive when you're dead.....so basically, it's only a bad thing while we're alive! the worst part of death imo will be when you know it's going to happen. like, say a serial killer tells you he's going to kill you in a minute...hehe....or getting the death penalty TOMORROW...or you're 98 years old and you're starting to have a heart attack. other than knowing WHEN you're going to die, death is only bad while we're alive. p.s. i'm talking about how death feels to you, yourself...not other people. death is still a bad thing for the person who misses a dead person.
Axeman, Perhaps you skimmed over it the last time, but I will repeat it for you -- "These are personal beliefs." There is no need to assert my beliefs on you or anyone else. I am merely offering you, another human-being, my own perspective on life. It is up to you if you think my beliefs are noteworthy or not -- but it is not up to me to prove them to you. I know there is a creator because I am here right now -- and something created me. This should be obvious to anyone. If something exists, it was created -- whatever mechanisms and actions brought about that object's creation is the creation process, or the creator. Please explain to me how something could exist without a creation process (thus a creator event). Defend it from what? Are you going to attack my mind with a mind-ray gun and attempt to extract all my beliefs and change the very essence of my belief structure? Are little green goblins going to come out of my closet tonight and try to suck my mind out, and thus I should be on the defensive? You are making an incorrect assumption. You are assuming that what I believe is rational. The standard accepted definition of "rational" is "consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior." In mathematics, rational means "capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers." Since any superset of the universe would exist outside the local domain of logic, rationality does not apply. Proof does not exist. This is where "faith" comes into play. I know these things because I have "felt" them. I've been around people who have died and I have "felt" something indescribable. I have had my own unique experiences that have firmly rooted in my mind that there are more things to this universe than rational explanation can define. Kids are very good at understanding this because they have no preconceived notion of what is possible and impossible. As a collective society, we restrict ourselves to very tight and rigid absolutes that sometimes prevent us from acknowledging that some things happen without explanation. Logic and empirical observation are a good advancement to increasing our state of technology and knowledge, but it is not a bridge to "ultimate knowledge." There are transitions of pattern and knowledge within each of our own lives that cannot be put into a rational environment. First, I have said before that logic is a step, but not an end, to total "truth." Just because it is illogical does not make it impossible or force that object's existence out of this universe. Humans are a perfect example. If we, based on never-changing principles of physics, are constructed of atoms and other physical things, we demonstrate just how easily it is to be illogical. Yet, emotions, which are often illogical, serve a very important purpose for certain events. Have you ever been so happy that you cried or so sad that you laughed? There is no logic in that, yet it happens. Critical thinking makes for faster computers, clearer TV sets and more efficient production of products within company. Critical thinking is wonderful for the advancement of many things within our life. However, critical thinking will never leave one successful in a relationship because, as humans, we possess elements of things that hint at components beyond logic and of this local set within our universe. I have no absolute knowledge of god, the after life or the purpose of existence. I have no rational belief structure that could explain the vast diversity and order within a chaotic and constantly changing system such as the universe. What I do have is a great appreciation for a system that is well outside by ability to completely define it. I think it is human nature to want to break things down almost to a binary level. We do this because it is convenient and makes our world simpler to digest. If we didn't do this, the vast diversity and complexity of life would probably make us go mad, so we constantly "filter" our senses and absorb those things that confirm our biases and opinions and reject those which do not solidify our views. "Right and wrong" are two things that show the binary nature of a lot of our present thinking. Knowledge, in the empirical sense, can be considered right or wrong with some things, but, as it has been said before, there is always more than one path through a forest. Is there a right way to assemble a product in a factory? Yes, that method would be the one that is most efficient for that factory's output. However, what if the right way, mechanically speaking, was the wrong way for employee moral? What if employees were constantly sweating and getting injured because the highest mechanical efficient way to assemble the product was considered the "right" way? Obviously, "right and wrong" aren't always so clearly defined. It is against the law to run a red-light. The reason this is so is because, if everyone ran a red-light, there would be no order to traffic patterns and more accidents would result. This rule is based exclusively for the protection and safe travel of people who travel from point A to point B. So, it is wrong to run a red-light, because it is not efficient in the long-run. Sure, some people will get their faster, but some people will die doing so. Likewise, if your wife was having a baby and you needed to get to the hospital as soon as possible, would it be wrong in your local domain to run a red light? Any "rational" person would say no, of course not -- you need to get there as fast as possible. So here is an event that is still wrong when considered in the superset of society yet it is right in your local set -- your here and now. So, if my beliefs are "right" for me, in my local set, they may not be "right" for you, in your set. Yet, that does not change the fact that there exists a superset that is independent of both our viewpoints of the world -- when both perspectives can still be "right."
First off THANKS FOR BLINDING ME Fasterpussycat. quote: Alright ... Daniel, I'll go out on a limb here and say that, "A creator MUST exist." Now, using "God" would imply too much -- so we'll just say that yeah, God / Creator are interchangable, but I'm not referring to Christianity or Judaism. So, I debate with you that a creator must exist. Do you accept this debate? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point is aphie: doesn't your last post (as excellent as it was) miss the point of the debate a little? The purpose surely is to try and TEST your feelings and the feelings and understandings of others in an attempt to find real (should I say meaningful) answers which improve on the no brainers posted by the thunderbolt kind 'Jesus is Lord! '. Are you saying that the debate you took on was always going to be answered with........ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if my beliefs are "right" for me, in my local set, they may not be "right" for you, in your set. Yet, that does not change the fact that there exists a superset that is independent of both our viewpoints of the world -- when both perspectives can still be "right quote: Most importantly, its always OK to admit that you don't know. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: Critical thinking makes for faster computers, clearer TV sets and more efficient production of products within company. Critical thinking is wonderful for the advancement of many things within our life. However, critical thinking will never leave one successful in a relationship because, as humans, we possess elements of things that hint at components beyond logic and of this local set within our universe ---------------------------------------------------- Surely 'critical thinking skills' WOULD be appropriate here. 'As humans, we possess elements of things that hint at components beyond logic' Yes....and after that.... we critically analise them... and it's why mankind understands more today than 5 20 50 100 1000 years go 'critical thinking will never leave one successful in a relationship' But neither necessarily will the 'elements of things that hint at components beyond logic' . Both are subject to failure, but with the critical thinking you can at least reassess, reevaluate in an attempt to understand where one went wrong I submit that the I am right you are right / agree to disagree approach is not conducive to mankind's progress and the finding out of things we need to find out ...............things we are probably intended to find out. You give me the impression that you are extremely interested and motivated to enquire and search. So forgive me for saying you appear to have just given reasons not to discuss and that does unfortunately concede the debate to daniel_m which you took on. As soon as you become content to believe your beliefs the questioning ends. Bad idea in Trading terms too I thinks axeman's weak aetheism is probably a successful belief status as it allows for further development and discussion from his stance as well as those of his opposing proponents