using logic the bible makes no sense, i would know, i was once a Christian:
A great design needs a great designer, LIEs
using this wouldn't God need a designer? response: no he has always been
therefor using that logic couldn't the world have always been?
im not saying it has, but by that way of thinking your just repeating what you have been thaught without and use of your mind!
open you eyes ppl!
There are more people here who have been raised as Christians.
As for your logic, what do you want to prove?
You state A great design needs a great designer. God is the supposedly great designer then, I take it. In the next step of your logic God is suddenly design?
In your analogy, are we talking about the parents of the designer?
So a great designer needs great parents? Who supposedly designed him?
If you try to hint at the problem of ultimate beginnings, you'll get stuck with EVERY belief. There is no answer to Who created God. Just as there is no answer to what was there before the Big Bang.
If he has always been, the world cannot have always been, since God created the world, according to Christians. Besides, there are a finite number of generations before the birth of Christ, according to Matthew.
So calculating backwards the world cannot have existed forever by biblical standards as well.
I'm curious to hear if you have more arguments.
Naj.
i was raised christian as well, so i know what all is said.
im basicly stating that using the same thaught process that christians have you can turn it around and get a point for yourself. Now if nothing created God he could be eternal, right? ok, using that we could also say that the world has been eternal. I have also heard "the world is to complex to be made on its own, it has to been made some someone or something, maybe not god, but it has to have some designer", at first it sounds rightb ut when you think about it it makes no sense.
Now science has just speculation and it really has mo basis, at least religions have a witness's great great great grndson to write a tablet one it or something.
EpiNirvana wrote:using logic the bible makes no sense, i would know, i was once a Christian:
A great design needs a great designer, LIEs
using this wouldn't God need a designer? response: no he has always been
therefor using that logic couldn't the world have always been?
im not saying it has, but by that way of thinking your just repeating what you have been thaught without and use of your mind!
open you eyes ppl!
I don't know any Christian who makes the argument that God was designed i.e. created, so it does not follow that therefore He needs a designer to design Him.
Your strawman is just a humorous sidenote.
Chumly wrote:Hi neologist,
By your argument I should then give equal "serious consideration" to the concept that my dog blinked the world into existence (in it's entirety) exactly 10 minutes ago. Does the word plausibility have any meaning in your theistic lexicon?
It couldn't be. I was in the sauna 15 minutes ago.
But you have apparently made my point by your assertion that somehow the bible does not merit serious consideration.
Hi najmelliw,
Update: thanks very much for your truly (now really huge!) thoughtful reply as per Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible (Free Inquiry -- Spring 1982) I am composing a response but it will take some time to reply in kind. Good for you!
real life wrote:EpiNirvana wrote:using logic the bible makes no sense, i would know, i was once a Christian:
A great design needs a great designer, LIEs
using this wouldn't God need a designer? response: no he has always been
therefor using that logic couldn't the world have always been?
im not saying it has, but by that way of thinking your just repeating what you have been thaught without and use of your mind!
open you eyes ppl!
I don't know any Christian who makes the argument that God was designed i.e. created, so it does not follow that therefore He needs a designer to design Him.
Your strawman is just a humorous sidenote.
That's not a strawman at all, and it is, in fact, that application of the principle of applying the least number of causes. In the first place, the member
has not posited that Christians argue that "god" was designed, or created. This member points out that when confronted with the question of who created the creator, christians habitually answer that no one has done so, that their god is eternal. Using the principle of not multiplying causes, one can stipulate that the cosmos is eternal, eliminating the need for a deity.
Perhaps one may allege that this member expressed him- or herself poorly. However, the strawman is your inferential assertion that this member has claimed that christians claim that the creator was created--in fact, this expression hinges on the denial by christians that the creator could have been created.
Chumly, Yup, I believe the ball is in your court. Curious to see what you will answer
Set, could you please explain your own logic? Going from god is eternal to the cosmos is eternal and the need for a deity is eliminated, is a big step. Basically, EpiNirvana says if God is eternal, and God created the world, then the world(you exchange this for the stornger cosmos) is eternal, and if the world is eternal, there is no need for a God, since it always has been. Is this the logic behind it? Because it seems faulty to me.
I'd have to look up Christian theology in the Middle Ages and before, but I think said logic has already been tackled in there somewhere.
Naj.
najmelliw wrote:Chumly, Yup, I believe the ball is in your court. Curious to see what you will answer
Set, could you please explain your own logic? Going from god is eternal to the cosmos is eternal and the need for a deity is eliminated, is a big step. Basically, EpiNirvana says if God is eternal, and God created the world, then the world(you exchange this for the stornger cosmos) is eternal, and if the world is eternal, there is no need for a God, since it always has been. Is this the logic behind it? Because it seems faulty to me.
I'd have to look up Christian theology in the Middle Ages and before, but I think said logic has already been tackled in there somewhere.
Naj.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda--causes are not to be multiplied. It is a principle of philosophy of long date, and is often (erroneously) described as Occam's razor. That is not precisely what William of Ockham wrote.
However, it simple means that one eliminates unnecessary causes to any effect, or refuses to insert them into a theorem in the first place.
Therefore, is a religionist asserts that a deity has created the cosmos, but, when asked who created that deity, responds that no one has done so, that the deity is eternal, the response which involves the fewest assumptions of cause is that the cosmos itself is eternal--there is no logical need to assume a creator.
EDIT: This is not a line of thought original to me, or to the other member who expressed it. It has long been advanced as a cogent objection to one of the ontological arguments for god.
The contrived comparison does neither any service.
Set, but that implies NO God whatshowever can exist. If your logic is correct, all religions dealing with gods of one form or another are incorrect, since no God can exist.
Because if there is a God who is not eternal, someone must have created him, and then the same question applies to that entitity, and so forth. Until one ends up with one being who is eternal, and then one can eliminate all entities listed in that manner.
If Christians claim that God is/was eternal, they make an unsubstantiated claim IMHO. We have too little data to confirm or deny this statement, and besides, as human beings we cannot (or perhaps better said, I cannot) even begin to comprehend the concept of existing forever.
I postulate: There is too little information available to us to form a coherent image of any god, just as there is too little information available to us to form an image of what has existed before the big bang. God may be eternal, he may have come into being by accident, he may be a descendant from a dying race with astounding technological capabilities, come here to toy with us primitive life forms. Too little information allows for too much speculation. So all we can make statements about, is what that God has done in regard to humanity, since that is what most religions have 'documented'.
Now, since this thread is about the bible, and EpiNirvana deals with the eternity of God and the world, I point out that the Bible lists a FINITE number of generations from Adam and Eve, created just after the world has been, to Jezus, who, as is claimed by Christianity, has lived around the years 1 - 33 AD. So this means the world has existed for a finite amount of time.
The cosmos (the stars) are also created in Genesis one, a little bit after the earth was. So, once again according to biblical data, the cosmos has existed for a finite time as well.
God, on the other hand, existed already at the very first verse. Even something eternal can make something which has only existed for a finite amount of time. One does not of necessity imply the other, that is where I think the logic argument is faulty.
Mind you, I keep telling it, I am no longer a Cristian and pay little heed to the bible, but I have been raised one and at times managed to stay awake long enough to get a basic grasp of the bible.
No, it does not state that no god can exist. It simply points out that a deity is logically unnecessary as a first cause. The ontological argument to which i referred is that god is logically necessary as first cause. The argument advanced by the other member, and upon which i have commented, is simply that god is not logically necessary as first cause.
I agree that any claims with regard to a deity are unsubstantiated. However, in advancing arguments against the first cause ontological argument, i am not asserting that no god is possible, only that a god is not logically necessary.
To me an inanimate object is easier to produce that a complex homicidal creative being. To suggest that this being came before an inanimate object defies common sense. The coming into existence of an inanimate object out of nothing is impossible.
No, the argument that quarks appear in and out don't apply as all the investigations in quantum mechanics deal with disturbed energy fields and anything can happen there. Anyway there is always the matter and anti-matter quarks created in pairs to cancel out each other.
EpiNirvana wrote:using logic the bible makes no sense, i would know, i was once a Christian:
A great design needs a great designer, LIEs
using this wouldn't God need a designer? response: no he has always been
therefor using that logic couldn't the world have always been?
im not saying it has, but by that way of thinking your just repeating what you have been thaught without and use of your mind!
open you eyes ppl!
Christians do indeed belief in an eternal God that created the physical universe and all that is in it.
Materialists, such as Hawking, argue for an eternal universe.
Others try to straddle the fence by invoking a 'Big Bang' with matter/energy that appeared from nowhere and exploded for no reason (If there was a Source of the matter/energy and a reason that it exploded, then they must fall into one of the two previous camps. It was either created at some point (it was not eternal), or it was not (it was eternal).)
If an eternal God exists, then all that we see is explainable.
If only an eternal universe exists then the self organizing of simple matter into complex, self sustaining , living beings in violation of the law of entropy is not explainable. An inherent contradiction persists.
At least that's the way it seems to me.
God hates evil so why did he create a world where there is a potential for evil to occur? He could have just stayed in his heaven twiddled his thumbs. It is a waste of energy to create an error-ridden universe then then judge it and have heaven again. All unnecessary. With his pre-knowledge he does need to go thru this creation-judgement nonsense. This god is really a creation of priests to frighten people with judgement so their livelihood is secure.
That's true everyone gets their information somewhere. But if your going to believe in something try make it realistic and not something totally illogical. EpiNirvana is questioning the logic of the Bible and I agree with him. The science is wrong and the God does evil, horrible things. There's no sense here.
I liken the Bible believers to someone going to a movie and becoming so taken in by the story they don't want to believe it's not true. I recall years ago when a book came out called Watership Down. I read it and it's a great read. It about rabbits in England. The author picked a spot in England, provided a map, and told a charming story about some rabbits.
I recall, after I had read the book, reading a small artical in the newspaper (this was before internet). A boy in England had just finished reading the book and wanted to be a rabbit, just like the ones in the book. So he killed himself in the belief that he would be reincarnated into a rabbit.
I see the same thing in religion. They are so taken in by the story they don't want to leave it or are afraid to leave it because of the consequences (hellfire and damnation). I could never understand why people think God needs and demands adulation.
Xingu,
I hope you have a wonderful 4th of July!
now logically speaking, it seems that they (the non-believers) get their stuff from somewhere too!
If they weren't getting it from someone else or somewhere else, then why do they all ask the same questions, bring up the same exact things in the Bible trying to prove God is a meanie and all.
I'm just curious if any of the non-believers that protest so heartily have ever heard of the phrase "I think he doth protest too much?"
