Questions and Statements about God...

[supaman4321]

It's the plural of respect look it up

Allah constantly says "We" in the Qur'an but you won't find ANY Muslim who says He is not ahad or one with no partners or associates

try again

 

[blue falcon]

Seriously Dude, do you even read the ‘bible’? [Gen. 19] is the continuation and ending of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. The story begins at [Gen. 18:16]. When you read [Gen. 19], you'll begin to understand that ‘g-d’ was accompanied by two messengers, not 'g-d' appearing as three persons.

Where does it say its the same two angels? Are you taking the fact that two angels went to Sodom to mean that those were the same two that were with God? There are literally leigons of angels. Prove to me these are the same two.

 

[blue falcon]

He said there were two 'g-ds' in the "bible" not three.

Have you actually researched this or are you simply assuming that the Holy Spirit isn't in the new testament.

 

[Hyde Parke]

I am sorry you feel I have insulted you. I would go back and reread what I wrote.

The statements you are making now seem to produce a paradox. You state you agree that probability can differ from one belief to an other but no difference exists between a highly probable belief and an inprobable one. I would revisit my betting analogy. You must concede that if you were to place a wager on an NFL team to win the Superbowl right now your wager would vary from team to team. This means you place different value on your beliefs. Further if your beliefs are too out of step with reality you can be punished for holding them. If you belief the NY Jets will win the Superbowl and offer to cover all wagers at 10:1 you could be right but the strength of the teams and the locations they will play indicate the Jets are a long shot to win and not a 10:1 favorite. If no difference exist between beliefs how can you be harmed by holding one over an other?

To further muddy the waters you mention the belief in a flat earth. State this belief has been proven false, which is not the case by the way. Then conclude we must be careful of dismissing others that do not agree with us. While I whole-heartedly support your conclusion I do not know how you got to it from the statements you made. For several 1000 years folks have known the Earth was round. Others held the belief the earth was flat. As evidence mounted to support the round earth belief adherence to the flat earth belief almost disappeared. This seems an excellent example of how 2 ideas addressing a common issue are not remotely equal to one an other.

Whar, i will respectfully disagree with you..To clear things up, without bringing in further analogies (which you initiated btw). The point I am making here, is that a belief, no matter what the belief is, can be dangerous, because it forces the believer to choose a side, and stay there, pretty much like what you are doing now. It hinders growth and devolopment. I ask again, why do we have beliefs in the first place? I could go back and forth with you on the matter, and find all sorts of things to support my argument, and you could do the same, but if you already hold the belief of what you believe to be the truth, whatever I say makes no difference to you. Im not interested in being right, I think it vain, and narrowminded.

I think the muddying of waters can be attributed back to you. I didnt bring in all kinds of charts and diagrams as you did to prove to you what im saying is true, you did. Revisit your own replies for reference.. It is a very simple thing here, and that is the whole issue of beliefs and why we as a people feel we need them. That is all.

 

[blue falcon]

2. Please quote the part where I state nothing can be wrong. If you believe wrong must be objective then state that and argue it not your misunderstood concept of my 'world view'. You have not yet address the weakness that objective moral produice. Chiefly that an agent of the divine can alter your moral compass at thier discretion. If an angel tells you you must kill a child and you are convinced it is geniune divine revelation you would not consider the act wrong. This is a stunning weakness of externalized morals.

3. I have to prove logic to myself which I have done. It is sad that I can not construct a simple arguement to convince you of this a thing that actually exists, however I do not believe you are entirely argueing in good faith. That is you can not change your mind or admit you are wrong.

4. I assume this is to "All people have a right to life" statement. This is one of my assumption that I accept as true to build my moral compass. I arrive at it using reason and logic. I will start with several our selfish assumption and use deductive logic to arrive at the position.

I want to be alive.

I want to be happy.

I want to be safe.

I want control over my life.

I can only achieve these desire if the following statement is true 'I have a right to my life' or 'I am the owner of my life'. I prefer the first but any statement like this works.

Now the logic part.

Some people have a right to thier life.

I am someone.

Therefore I might have a right to my life.

No one has a right to their life

I am someone.

Therefore I do not have a right to my life.

Everyone has a right to their life

I am someone.

Therefore I have a right to my life

Only I have a right to my life.

I am someone.

Arguement fails due to special pleading.

The only logical conclusions is everyone has a right to their life.

5. Yet it is vastly superior to assigning your morals based on the teaching of a Sky Daddy. Question why to atheist make up 5 ot 6% of the nations population and .2% of the prison population?

6-7. Handing waving trying to explain God homocidal rages. If the Jesus stand is crystal clear on morals why does no one seem to agree on what those stands are?

1. If you aren't willing to accept the most logical conclusion of your line of reason then there really is not point in going on. You have said already that society sets right and wrong and didn't disagree that murder and rape are intrinsically wrong but that because society says they are therefore they are. So in REALITY nothing is ACTUALLY wrong. I mean in all reality money isn't ACTUALLY valuable we give it worth and value. So therefore NOTHING in your epistemology is really wrong but because society says it is, therefore it is or isn't wrong. So following that logic hitler wasn't REALLY wrong because his society (which he was at the helm of) said it was ok to kill millions of people. Stalin wasn't actually wrong for deporting people to to gulag and killing millions because his society (which he too was at the helm of) said it was ok.

There is no weakness in objective morality, if anything the weakness is in relative morality. God never changed His mind about His law, when He told Israel to kill whom ever it was that was to fulfill Gods divine justice. Your argument seems to assume that God is bound by the same moral obligations as we are. Not at all. God can strike me down this instant and that would be His right because He made me were as if I did that to soemone I'd be a murderer because I had no right to take a persons life. If we take moral relativism on or secular humanism I'd like to see testable proof for the intrinsic value of human life. If an angel told me to kill I'd know it was from the devil. God ONLY commanded the Israeli army to kill because He was the direct leader of that country and used them to hash out his judgment. God never told individuals to go out and kill people he gave that to armies and it was for the purpose of passing judgment on people like the Cananites who were sacrificing their children to Baal.

2. You have to prove logic to yourself? Well isn't that simply blind belief like what atheist claim christians have? You cannot prove it in real life but you prove it to youself so therefore its true? I know logic exist because I have the proper pre-condition which is God. But without God logic cannot exist, where did the order come from in which to frame logic. In your example if you went to sleep and there was no snow and then you wake up there is snow so logically you can deduce there was snow. Yes in an ordered system where you can acutally base judgement calls like that on the uniformity of nature. But in the Godless system of atheist the snow could simply appear out of nowhere it could jus simply grow up out of the ground or fall to the earth in the form of liquid water and then once it touches the ground turn into snow. There would be absolutely no uniformity of nature in which to base that call on. You are assuming that because you've seen that happen in the past that it has remained that way in the present and will continue that way in the future. That is an unprovable assertion in a secular humanist/atheist world.

3. Key words "YOU ASSUME". But if someone doesn't build their moral compass on that then what? Who is right and who is wrong? Lets say I build my moral compass on all blacks are superior to all others and therefore I have the right to do whatever to whom ever so long as they aren't black? Would I be wrong? Why would I be wrong? What standard are you basing that on? Your standard well who was the standard before you? You see your epistemology is inwardly contradictory. YOu believe things that logic and science can prove YET the value of human life is NOT provable or observable. Say a race of far superior aliens come to earth. Why should they view your life with any more respect than we view an ant or any other insect?

who says special pleading is wrong? YOU? Do you eat meat? Do cows have the right not to be eaten and to their own life? What makes that cows life less important that yours? Or if your a vegitarian what made that piece of celery less important that you felt it was ok to eat it?

4. Lets ask the real question. Where they religious before or after they got in jail. Plenty of people undergo jail house conversions. And lets look at the 20th century. How Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge etc were all atheist and were responsible for MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of deaths. So are we going to ignore this or just sweep it under the rug?

5. God killing cannot be considered "homicial" because God has the power of life and death. And God gave everybody in the bible ample time to repent of their wickedness (the Cananites had 400 years to repent of sacrificing children because Israel built an army and struck them down). Now as for the killing children in situations like this God doesn't condemn babies and children under the age of accountablitiy to hell. So God having them killed is a far more merciful act than letting them live. They would have been corrupted by their culture became wicked possibly never repented and went to hell forever whereas God killed them and saved them eternal punishment. There are a few reasosn why the most obvious is that people with an agenda have and always will exploit the beliefs of people be they religious, social or whatever and use them to their own ends. People with legitimate concerns about the environment and pollution get wrapped up in the global warming hype and they go crazy and start slashing the tires of SUVs. People who have their christian beliefs tampered with by bad hermenutics to name a few things go and become crazed zealots ready to kill at the drop of a hat in the name of "Jesus". That doesn't change the fact that the bible has clear cut laws and rules for us to follow. Darwinism and Evolution grew into a wicked movement called social darwinism which saw the sterilization of millions of people in the US (esepecially blacks and I would encourage you to watch a movie called Maafa 21) and became the blue print for some of the racist sterilization policies in Nazi germany. Does that mean that this is what Darwin intended?

 

[blue falcon]

I'm burned out on the IC. I made literally thousands of posts in debates in this forum and they were all wiped away. I have a hard time giving a shit. If you wanna have some good debates, peep Tha Corner.

Weren't u going to leave anyway? Or was that a publicity stunt?

 

[blue falcon]

Can you prove this? Concepts are tools used by humans, fact. Concepts are based on cognition; which is defined as 1. cognitive mental processes; also : a product of these processes. Since both of these terms (concept and cognition) are defined as occurring mentally, one can derive that before brains existed they could not possibly exist. I'll admit, this is quite generous as it can credit the earliest of bilateria with creation of concepts/cognition. However, what this does, is set a finite limit on the earliest that mental-based process could've existed; the only way to challenge this is to prove that things without brains are capable such mental processes.

Can you prove this? That logic exists in nature separate from the mind?

It is already understood that concepts are mental; meaning that, at most they require a mind to exist. To refute this requires evidence that concepts can exist separate from minds.

And lastly:

You've used this term a lot, it is actually "empirically"; which is the adverb form of "empirical". Empiricism is based on cognition; meaning it is something that is a result of some form of mental process as are concepts. To use a mental-based thought process to prove (proof is also a concept) that mental-based thought processes exist is a paradox, as you'll need to prove the tool you are using to prove the existence of such tools actually exists. Thereby making it illogical to do so.

This means your very first post in this thread is illogical in nature.

1. Can you prove that no brain or intelligence existed before humans? How do you get cognition, intelligence and creativity from billions of years of random chance mutations?

2. The world operates in a logical order. We get logic FROM nature. We observe nature and understand that things have a cause and effect.

3. My argument is that there was a mind before us and that Mind is called God. The word Logos used in John 1:1 not only can mean WORD but LOGIC and REASON. So John 1:1 could read in the beginning was the LOGIC and the LOGIC was with God and the LOGIC WAS God. Your argument assumes that logic could exist without God or that human minds have come up with logic but that is seriously flawd logic. For something to work in a logical order it must be working in a logical order for us to observe as logical. We may call it logic but we surely didn't give rise to logical and ordered systems of life that we observe. The "cycle of life" didn't just start being logical when humans hit the scene. It was logical before we were around which is why it works and which is why we can observe it AS BEING logical.

4. No this means that atheism is an illogical epistemology because this is the very thing they will say. They need proof for everything they believe yet they will say they only believe logic, reason and science things which CANNOT be proven empirically. Logic is assumed, reason is assumed and the foundations of science which is logic and the uniformity of nature are assumed which means science amounts to an educated guess and therefore is unprovable. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[BOSS KTULU]

Weren't u going to leave anyway? Or was that a publicity stunt?

publicity? on this shit hole?

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I thought this thread was about the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament.

 

[whar67]

Whar, i will respectfully disagree with you..To clear things up, without bringing in further analogies (which you initiated btw). The point I am making here, is that a belief, no matter what the belief is, can be dangerous, because it forces the believer to choose a side, and stay there, pretty much like what you are doing now. It hinders growth and devolopment. I ask again, why do we have beliefs in the first place? I could go back and forth with you on the matter, and find all sorts of things to support my argument, and you could do the same, but if you already hold the belief of what you believe to be the truth, whatever I say makes no difference to you. Im not interested in being right, I think it vain, and narrowminded.

I think the muddying of waters can be attributed back to you. I didnt bring in all kinds of charts and diagrams as you did to prove to you what im saying is true, you did. Revisit your own replies for reference.. It is a very simple thing here, and that is the whole issue of beliefs and why we as a people feel we need them. That is all.

It would seem we are using different definitions of belief. A belief is a state of mind that one holds a proposition to be true. Beliefs can be about big things or little thing, fantastic things or mundane. For example, I purchase a Double Gulp from 7-11 this morning. This is a belief I hold. It is a past event that has happen but it does not changethe fact it is also a proposition that I hold to be true. I enjoyed my steak last night is also a belief I hold.

Given the breadth of the definition I am using not all beliefs hinder growth or are dangerous. In fact, without belief people would be unable to function since they would hold nothing as true. However I would agree that a subset of belief if held to too rigidly or dogmatically can behave as you state. They would divide and stunt development of those that hold them. As to why people would allow that I could only guess. I imagine it is due to people defining themselves by what they belief, altering the belief then becomes altering the person. It is much hard to alter ones self-image than a belief.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

For example, I purchase a Double Gulp from 7-11 this morning. This is a belief I hold. It is a past event that has happen but it does not changethe fact it is also a proposition that I hold to be true.

I do not understand that reasoning right there. It is not a belief that you bought a big gulp, you did buy a big gulp, I think the belief part comes in when you have a perception of that big gulp: say.... you thought it tasted good. That would be a belief. May or may not be true in the context of others because they may not agree that it tasted good.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

If god existed, no, god could not be destroyed. If god could be destroyed, then it was not god in the first place.

If god doesn't exist, then yes god could be destroyed. The only thing keeping assumed god "alive" is the mind of man, and if that ceased to be an ideology, then so would the pressumed god.

 

[whar67]

1. Right and wrong 'actually' 'really' exist only if God says they do.

You have wrapped you belief in God with right and wrong only making sense coming from him. You seem to think that unless some ultimate source tells us a thing is wrong we can not know if a thing is wrong. You believe that if 2 people hold a different belief there is no way of know which is the 'right' or true belief. The fact is each person builds their own moral compass and it is only in the subjective way can they make decisions in this world. Right and wrong are the judge we make on our decisions. If you eliminate humans from the equation right and wrong cease to exist.

1.a No weakness in objective morals

9/11 an act engaged by people of faith and driven by that faith. The difference between a stalin or a Pol Pot is they were not motivated by the absense of a belief in a God. Even Hitler who was a Catholic but he did not kill because of his faith. It is the believer that kills because of his belief that is the danger.

2. Logic is own by God

I have demostrated logical structures and their successful ability to lead to sound conclusions this is enough for me to conclude logic is real. The level of absurdity that appears in this portion of your post is stunning. It is only in your warped world can snowfall magically appear unless an other magical being exists to bring order to the chaotic comings and goings of snow.

3. Yes I make assumptions just like you. Conflicts arise between different viewpoints all the time. There are several ways these conflicts are resolved. Any determination I make is driven by my internal compass whether I like it or not. If I take your scenario is it moral for one race to hold itself superior to an other and ask 1,000,000 christian at random I will get a vast number of 'No's, however I will also get a small numbers of 'Yes's. Further these Yes's will state God gives them this moral code. Unless right and wrong are internal how can these similar set reach these opposites conclusions? How can I determine which one accurately reflects the moral order God desires?

4. Addressed in #2

5. God can kill and it is OK. Got it.

 

[whar67]

I do not understand that reasoning right there. It is not a belief that you bought a big gulp, you did buy a big gulp, I think the belief part comes in when you have a perception of that big gulp: say.... you thought it tasted good. That would be a belief. May or may not be true in the context of others because they may not agree that it tasted good.

A belief is a state of mind. I did buy a Double Gulp. it is an event from my past, however it is also a statement I hold as true in my mind. It is this state of mind that defines belief.

 

[blue falcon]

1. Right and wrong 'actually' 'really' exist only if God says they do.

You have wrapped you belief in God with right and wrong only making sense coming from him. You seem to think that unless some ultimate source tells us a thing is wrong we can not know if a thing is wrong. You believe that if 2 people hold a different belief there is no way of know which is the 'right' or true belief. The fact is each person builds their own moral compass and it is only in the subjective way can they make decisions in this world. Right and wrong are the judge we make on our decisions. If you eliminate humans from the equation right and wrong cease to exist.

1.a No weakness in objective morals

9/11 an act engaged by people of faith and driven by that faith. The difference between a stalin or a Pol Pot is they were not motivated by the absense of a belief in a God. Even Hitler who was a Catholic but he did not kill because of his faith. It is the believer that kills because of his belief that is the danger.

2. Logic is own by God

I have demostrated logical structures and their successful ability to lead to sound conclusions this is enough for me to conclude logic is real. The level of absurdity that appears in this portion of your post is stunning. It is only in your warped world can snowfall magically appear unless an other magical being exists to bring order to the chaotic comings and goings of snow.

3. Yes I make assumptions just like you. Conflicts arise between different viewpoints all the time. There are several ways these conflicts are resolved. Any determination I make is driven by my internal compass whether I like it or not. If I take your scenario is it moral for one race to hold itself superior to an other and ask 1,000,000 christian at random I will get a vast number of 'No's, however I will also get a small numbers of 'Yes's. Further these Yes's will state God gives them this moral code. Unless right and wrong are internal how can these similar set reach these opposites conclusions? How can I determine which one accurately reflects the moral order God desires?

4. Addressed in #2

5. God can kill and it is OK. Got it.

1. So ultimately hitler was right because hitler thought he was right? Yes you need an ultimate source. If I say 2+2=4 but then another person says 2+2=10 who is right? If there is no objective truth then 2+2 could equal anything. Right and wrong are not subjective things because universally I think people can grasp the idea of right and wrong good and evil. So where did Good and Evil come from. If there is no source or basis for this distinction then moral truths become illusory as they only exist in the mind of the beholder. Was hitlers moral compass off? According to your logic no.

2. Actually yes they were motivated by the absence of God. Because there is no God therefore the state and therefore them as the heads of state were the ultimate standard by which to judge. And they could judge that people who didn't follow along with what they said had to go. Assuming it was muslims acting out 9/11 that only proves that Islam is a messed up religion for requiring its followers to kill others. You cannot lump all religious or spiritual people in the same bag. Because Stalin and Moa were atheist doesn't mean every atheist is a potential mass murderer.

3. That is only if you accept what you said as logical. However with no standards by which to judge logic your arguments are simply your own opinions. You haven't explained why special pleading is wrong. I'm sure you'd eat a plant or animal with no hesitation but you'd shudder at the thought of eating a human. That's special pleading right there. In my world view there is a reason for everything. The world came into existance because of God created it. Nature works because God created it to work a certian way. However in the atheist epistemology there is only the assumption of the uniformity of nature but no real assurance of it. You use logic but there is no real standard by which to judge that your logic is logical.

4. However we aren't basing this on the opinions of chrisitans. There is an objective standard of christian thought and doctrine, the bible. While there are several false understandings of the bible, a false understanding only proves that there is a TRUE understanding that has been corrupted. The bible doesn't hold one race above another. The Jews were indeed Gods chosen race to bless the world but that doesn't make them superior to other peoples. You could simply read the bible to find the understanding of God. What most people who hold false understandings do is read their own doctrine or their own beliefs into the bible. We should get our doctrine FROM the bible not read our beliefs and doctrine INTO the bible.

5. Yes God created and therefore God has the right to destroy. I don't see whats wrong with that understanding. n

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

A belief is a state of mind. I did buy a Double Gulp. it is an event from my past, however it is also a statement I hold as true in my mind. It is this state of mind that defines belief.

You are using the "state of mind" aspect incorrectly. Yes a belief can be a state of mind in the context of putting trust in something or someone. If you were drunk off your ass and don't recall going out, but you believe you went to get a big gulp, that is when you could use the "state of mind" definition. But if you actually went to get one, it is no longer a belief(putting trust in yourself that you went) but a reality.

 

[cwill 420]

Where does it say its the same two angels? Are you taking the fact that two angels went to Sodom to mean that those were the same two that were with God? There are literally leigons of angels. Prove to me these are the same two.

That’s not my argument. My argument is inductive. I’m not trying to explicitly identify who or what “angels” were with ‘g-d’. I’m just saying that ‘g-d’ was with two “angels”. But there is a strong possibility that they were the same “angels”.

 

[whar67]

You are using the "state of mind" aspect incorrectly. Yes a belief can be a state of mind in the context of putting trust in something or someone. If you were drunk off your ass and don't recall going out, but you believe you went to get a big gulp, that is when you could use the "state of mind" definition. But if you actually went to get one, it is no longer a belief(putting trust in yourself that you went) but a reality.

A belief is state of mind that you hold a proposition to be true. God loves me and I bought a Double Gulp this morning are both beliefs ... well actually only for someone who holds both to be true. A belief does not require a chance for falsity.

A belief that is in fact true is called knowledge. Philsophers would call it a justified true belief.

 

[Shuffington]

I appreciate how patient whar67 always is with these dummies. I'm too mean to explain the same obvious shit over and over again to people who don't want to learn.

..........lol

 

[blue falcon]

That’s not my argument. My argument is inductive. I’m not trying to explicitly identify who or what “angels” were with ‘g-d’. I’m just saying that ‘g-d’ was with two “angels”. But there is a strong possibility that they were the same “angels”.

It doesn't say God was with two angels. Where are you getting this from? It says

1And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

I've read Gen 18 and did a word search the word angel or angels doesn't appear in the whole of Genesis 18 in the KJV.