Were did God come from?

[souleh 0]

Tell me, where do you get this insight into God's 'nature'? Have you met and discussed his tendencies over a coffee?

'[Insert disagreed point here] but only in accordance with his nature' is a lovely catch-all.

You state that God is both omnipotent and omniscient, yet how can he (knowing all) know every action he will ever take? If this is so, he cannot be omnipotent - he'd be unable to change his actions.

You simply cannot state that we 'can't outrun a cheetah due to our nature'. My nature is to be inquisitive. I can consciously decide not to inquire as the mood takes me; this is my privilege. Our inability to outrun a cheetah isn't linked to our nature, but our physical limitations. (Hence why with training you can learn and work towards running faster than the average man - if this was an immovable fact of life, if someone's nature was set in stone, we'd never be able to increase our tolerances and physical abilities).

If you want to bring that parallel, are you stating that God must have physical limitations?

How can a God with limitations be a true God?

'buttplugs? where?' - geno

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

That's very interesting, since there is no logical proof of the existance on any god or gods. Your God is not any more likely to exist then Vishnu or Odin or Allah.

Strawman

The creation is proof that there had to be a Creator. A painting is proof that there had to be a painter. A building is proof that there had to be a builder. And your conscious bears witness to the fact that you've broken His moral law (liar thief, adulterer, blasphemer, etc.)

How is your God more likely to exist then any of the other gods out there? If your god is THE God then everyone else must me wrong. Just because something exists does not automatically mean there was a creator. Your logic is flawed.

btw are you calling me a

Quote

(liar thief, adulterer, blasphemer, etc.)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I laugh in the face of your feeble threats. haha.

They're not my threats. See quote at the bottom.

Quote

Seriously though, life without gods grace... I'm not seeing the downside. I mean it's not like I missed anything so far.

That's because you're living in God's grace right now. He's withholding judgment even though you're guilty, fully deserving of punishment, and continue to break his laws every day. It's fun to enjoy "sin for a season" but it will end. Then the judgment will bring the full weight of the Law on your head. Because that will be all that is left for you in the end. You're not able to pay the penalty for your lawlessness and you haven't appropriated what was already paid on your behalf by the only one who ever could.

Quote

He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:18

[shropshire 0]

<,I have no idea. I don't see why he'd be required to be made of anything.>>

Well because I can't concieve of anything that it not made of stuff or for that matter [sic] having reason.

I know, that's my problem.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pajarito 0]

Quote

btw are you calling me a

Quote

(liar thief, adulterer, blasphemer, etc.)

Have you ever told a lie?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Well because I can't concieve of anything that it not made of stuff or for that matter [sic] having reason.

I know, that's my problem.

Fair enough...

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

btw are you calling me a

Quote

(liar thief, adulterer, blasphemer, etc.)

Have you ever told a lie?

Are you judging me?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

btw are you calling me a

Quote

(liar thief, adulterer, blasphemer, etc.)

Have you ever told a lie?

Are you judging me?

No.

...I didn't realize it was such a hard question.

...to answer.

[champu 1]

Quote

Is this logical? A little.

That's not how logic works. You are either in agreement with the principles of logic or you are not, much as God either exists, or He doesn't. Before the discussion even begins, the author of this article displays a lack of familiarity with tools he or she attempts to employ that, quite predictably, goes on to undermine the entire argument presented.

Quote

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it.

Ignoratio Elenchi, Non Sequitur

Quote

Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn't be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

Circulus in Probando

Quote

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

Argumentum Verbosium

I realize I'm being supercilious, but please understand my contempt isn't held towards what the author of your quoted article intends but fails miserably to conclude. I'm an engineer and a rationally-minded person. I'm quite capable of pointing out that a road being built is not fit for travel without bringing into the discussion my opinion of the road's destination.

[pajarito 0]

How about you...have you ever told a lie?

[SpeedRacer 1]

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?"

-Homer Simpson

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[pajarito 0]

Quote

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?"

-Homer Simpson

Hmmmmm.........

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

The creation is proof that there had to be a Creator. A painting is proof that there had to be a painter. A building is proof that there had to be a builder.

And is god proof that there had to be a mummy and daddy god?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,478]

>A painting is proof that there had to be a painter. A building is proof that there had to be a builder.

Who built the Devil's Causeway? What artist created the snowflake, or the geode? What musician composed the sound the wind makes in pine trees?

"I don't understand how it happened; therefore God did it" is not much of an argument.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

btw are you calling me a

Quote

(liar thief, adulterer, blasphemer, etc.)

Have you ever told a lie?

Are you judging me?

[url]
No.

...I didn't realize it was such a hard question.

...to answer.

Would the answer really matter?


You never answered my questions. Which question would you like me to answer? Liar? Thief? Adulterer? Blasphemer?


BTW Blasphemy depends on your point of view. A Muslim would probably consider you a blasphemer for not believing in Allah.

[Remster 26]

Quote

Who built the Devil's Causeway?

My buddy George did that last winter.

Quote

What artist created the snowflake

That would be Eloise. She's great with water.


Aksing that to someone who deeply beleives in creation will get you one answer: god. His god.

The issue is creation. There is no creation. There doenst need to be creation. Stuff exists.

Remster

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Would the answer really matter?

Yes

Quote

You never answered my questions. Which question would you like me to answer? Liar? Thief? Adulterer? Blasphemer?

BTW Blasphemy depends on your point of view. A Muslim would probably consider you a blasphemer for not believing in Allah.

Gotta go for now but I'll ask again.

Have you ever told a lie?

If so, what would that make you?

[JackC 0]

Quote

They're not my threats.

Maybe not but you seem to take great delight in pointing them out at every conceivable opportunity.

Quote

That's because you're living in God's grace right now.

And it is indistinguishable from it's own non-existence. Heaven should be a blast then.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Would the answer really matter?

Yes

Quote

You never answered my questions. Which question would you like me to answer? Liar? Thief? Adulterer? Blasphemer?

BTW Blasphemy depends on your point of view. A Muslim would probably consider you a blasphemer for not believing in Allah.

Gotta go for now but I'll ask again.

Have you ever told a lie?

If so, what would that make you?

Everyone has told a lie at least once in their life, even you. Does that mean that there is an invisible being tallying up your transgressions? I don't think so.

[champu 1]

Quote

How about you...have you ever told a lie?

Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Metam

You're working alongside your previously quoted author on a road paved with every fallacy there is.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Quote

How about you...have you ever told a lie?

Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Metam

You're working alongside your previously quoted author on a road paved with every fallacy there is.

But Clinton CS Lewis did it first!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tkhayes 154]

Quote

What the critics are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn't exist. Their assertion is illogical from the start. So what they are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. They want to use illogic to prove God doesn't exist instead of logic. It doesn't work and the "paradox" is self-refuting and invalid.

We are not illogical at all - actually it was a joke.

But my other post is pure logic. And we use pure logic to defend the non-existence of a God.

Simple logic would dictate that there is some PHYSICAL evidence or some repeatable and consistent way to prove that a God exists. More than just faith.

Religious types quote scribes, and testaments and sayings of old and more bunk from the Bible. Great. There is tons of proof of the scriptures, of the disciples, the old and new testaments, even the exsistence of Jesus Christ and all those other folks mentioned in the scriptures and the Bible.

But that in itself is not proof of ANY God. It is just solid evidence that even back then people BELIEVED in God. I never disputed the existence of Jesus Christ, and I am sure he was quite the guy.....

So was Jim Jones to his followers who died for him and his cause. But we all know they were wrong. I think that 2000 years ago, when they thought Jesus Christ was the son of God, that they followed lots of other similar beliefs prior to his arrival.

Which actually makes the followers inconsistent in their own beliefs.

It just happened to catch on, but not in any way is it proof by any standard other than faith.

TK

Quote

Dennis: (interrupting) Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

The two are unrelated. Einstein once famously said "God does not play dice with the universe.", and since quantum mechanics and the indeterminacy principle is now firmly established we must reinterpret his attempted refutation of quantum theory.

Are they? Dots can be drawn relatively easily, if you would like.
As mentioned earlier, try "Quantum Evolution" by McFadden. If having will is a matter of consciousness, and consciousness is an element of quantum environment (the brain does generate an EMF) then can it be said that human will (the soul) is a focus of consciousness expressed in the form of focused neurons? Perhaps this inexplicable control of function can be defined as "God within."
In other words, god comes from us. Enthus.

Just another variation on God of the Gaps. Even if free-will is real, and it is dependent on Quantum level effects (neither of which is certain and both of which have weighty opposing evidence). None of this would require a God. It wasn't original when Roger Penrose touched on this 17 years ago in "The Emperor's New Mind".

Just because the Bible says God gave us free will, the fact that we posess it does not prove that God exists.

In fact there is massive evidence he does not if you accept conventional science, not least of which is that the Bible & it's cousins, the scant few documents that purport God's existence, are so SPECTACULARLY wrong about... everything.

Perhaps you're a deist, well good luck with that, it's a bit of a nebulous claim, but again most "evidence" boils down to the "mysterious" gaps in our knowledge and those gaps are ever shifting. Quantum theory is a strange refuge for a faith based initiative.

[DSE 3]

You're preaching to the choir here, but I guess you don't realize that.
"God" is a proper noun. Using the term or not using the term bears zero relevance to the existence of "God" outside of vocabulary.
Could it be possible that the name was given to a process, emotion, id within ourselves that is inexplicable by ourselves?
Quantum Evolution....contains no "God." Just protons, neurons, electrons and measures of generational dynamics. And an interesting position on why prayer might actually work, in spite of evidence that it does not.

[dorbie 0]

I've seen your other posts.

As for the rest, it doesn't really need it. There are psychological phenomena which contribute to a belief in God, but I don't think it follows that we've labeled a part of ourselves as such. The need and belief is internal, the object of our obsession is not necessarily so.

The definition of an observer is still wide open in quantum mechanics.

As for prayer, it does not work, it has been tested and that is the hard science. To still say it works after a fashion you'd have to subscribe to the many infinitely bifuricating universes and your particular stream of consciousness navigating through one space-time-line as and you self-select a particular meta-outcome as an observer (as infinite versions of us would constantly do), then prayer might be a mechanism of choice. I find the theory attractive but by no means compelling but "prayer" as the mechanism absolutely uninspired and in particular looking back in time all outcomes stemmed from the same prayers, so you're left to conclude that choice is an illusion or simultaneous minds exist in different prayer/thought states as you progress. It frankly becomes messy and downright silly unless you conclude that free will is an illusion. Now that's just one theory, but one to which you're drawn at the outset but the same train of thought leads to a self-refutation I think.

God is not in the gaps here.

P.S. to clarify; in the process prayer itself becomes an entirely introspective thing and the outcome matching the effort of the internal mind and nothing else, since science demonstrates that prayer does not work. Hence the only refuge is in something as yet immeasurable. Simultaneously there is an internal prayer or non-prayer that leads to other undesired outcomes. You see why I conclude it becomes rather silly.