Question about the Christian God

[Jeffer]

So guys, brilliant plan. Don't feed the troll. So begin post #1

Anyways, as far as what Jeffer was saying goes, I understand his point that the church is a way for people to form strong social bonds and reinforce the values of their society, but I think that's not the only benefit of religion (for some individuals). For some people it provides a sense of purpose, justice, allows them to endure, etc.

On the other hand, you can obviously use religion to oppress or harass others.

I think the interesting question is how do we distinguish between a religion or system of belief that benefits its society and one that doesn't? "Obvious" answers are fine too, since you have to understand the obvious stuff before moving on.

Oh, far from it. The bond with God which gives a lot of people meaning in their lives, and which I cannot possibly relate to, is incredibly important too. But whether it's a side-effect of the social bonds or vice versa is pretty dfficult too determine. It is pretty much impossible to decently experiment (unless of course we take 1000 newborn babies, completely isolate them in their own society and see what the results are, but that might possibly be rude). However, I really doubt that religion is completely inexplicable by any evolutionary hypothesis, as those can explain much, if not all, about our society. Unless you think we humans have some special, divinely given quality that completely sets us apart from every other species in this world. But that's pretty much bullshit.

But anyway, back to the standard atheist/religious biblical arguments.

[Jyosua]

I skipped the last ten or eleven pages of stuff because... I knew where it was going but I also liked the question and didn't want to have to come back to quote and answer with my humble opinion, aka... fact :D (Just kidding back off!)

ITT yet another idiot doesn't read the entire topic and as such blathers on about useless, irrelevant bullshit.

EDIT: Relevant picture -

The problem with that picture, is that the guy is claiming he has a baseball, which is by definition a visible object. If he were to claim that, you could prove he doesn't have one by stripping him until there's nowhere to hide one. However, the problem with religion would be more like claiming you have an invisible, massless baseball. On that note, there's no way to prove that he doesn't, true, but there's no way to prove that he DOES either. It's a paradoxical problem.

[Meteor]

And since there is no way to prove the baseball exists, why is the guy even claiming it does?

[Esau of Isaac]

I skipped the last ten or eleven pages of stuff because... I knew where it was going but I also liked the question and didn't want to have to come back to quote and answer with my humble opinion, aka... fact :D (Just kidding back off!)

ITT yet another idiot doesn't read the entire topic and as such blathers on about useless, irrelevant bullshit.

EDIT: Relevant picture -

The problem with that picture, is that the guy is claiming he has a baseball, which is by definition a visible object. If he were to claim that, you could prove he doesn't have one by stripping him until there's nowhere to hide one.

This doesn't change the example. It makes it more ridiculous for the one making claims.

However, the problem with religion would be more like claiming you have an invisible, massless baseball. On that note, there's no way to prove that he doesn't, true, but there's no way to prove that he DOES either. It's a paradoxical problem.

What in the world is paradoxical about this?

[Jyosua]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

[Celice]

Apart from the entire discussion, "could" and "would" never come together. Simply because one could do something does not mean one would do something.

One may drop a glass; this does not prove that glasses drop.

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it.

This assumes an underlying ruleset exists. And that one has an impossibility to say 'no' in any regard.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Celice

[Esau of Isaac]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

You don't need to bother spending effort disproving it when it's obviously false. Is the possibility of my owning an invisible and intangible monkey that defecates on others when I say the code-phrase "Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care" somehow hung in limbo because it can't be disproven through physical means? No, it's obviously false by mere consideration of the different conditions that would have to be fulfilled for it to be true. In a sense, you could say vocalizing the incredibly minute possibility of them coming together could in and of itself be considered disproving it, but either way, it doesn't change the likelihood of the idea being true or false.

Your statement is paradoxical because your interpretation of disproving something is faulty. You don't need to see something to disprove that something. This would be akin to saying that in order to disprove the existence of said invisible and intangible monkey, I would need to observe it. As you said, this would prove its existence (assuming I somehow did it), so therefore the idea that you need to observe something to validly dismiss it as a possibility is patently false.

[Jyosua]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

You don't need to bother spending effort disproving it when it's obviously false. Is the possibility of my owning an invisible and intangible monkey that defecates on others when I say the code-phrase "Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care" somehow hung in limbo because it can't be disproven through physical means? No, it's obviously false by mere consideration of the different conditions that would have to be fulfilled for it to be true. In a sense, you could say vocalizing the incredibly minute possibility of them coming together could in and of itself be considered disproving it, but either way, it doesn't change the likelihood of the idea being true or false.

Your statement is paradoxical because your interpretation of disproving something is faulty. You don't need to see something to disprove that something. This would be akin to saying that in order to disprove the existence of said invisible and intangible monkey, I would need to observe it. As you said, this would prove its existence (assuming I somehow did it), so therefore the idea that you need to observe something to validly dismiss it as a possibility is patently false.

No. Just no. In order to scientifically prove something using the scientific method, it must be observable. If you don't understand this, you obviously have no concept of science. When something is intangible, it is not scientifically provable. Try proving true love using the scientific method. That's intangible. You won't be able to do it.

Where the fuck is quanta when you need him?

[Defeatist Elitist]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

You don't need to bother spending effort disproving it when it's obviously false. Is the possibility of my owning an invisible and intangible monkey that defecates on others when I say the code-phrase "Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care" somehow hung in limbo because it can't be disproven through physical means? No, it's obviously false by mere consideration of the different conditions that would have to be fulfilled for it to be true. In a sense, you could say vocalizing the incredibly minute possibility of them coming together could in and of itself be considered disproving it, but either way, it doesn't change the likelihood of the idea being true or false.

Your statement is paradoxical because your interpretation of disproving something is faulty. You don't need to see something to disprove that something. This would be akin to saying that in order to disprove the existence of said invisible and intangible monkey, I would need to observe it. As you said, this would prove its existence (assuming I somehow did it), so therefore the idea that you need to observe something to validly dismiss it as a possibility is patently false.

No. Just no. In order to scientifically prove something using the scientific method, it must be observable. If you don't understand this, you obviously have no concept of science. When something is intangible, it is not scientifically provable. Try proving true love using the scientific method. That's intangible. You won't be able to do it.

Where the fuck is quanta when you need him?

Yeah, in order to PROVE something, it must be observable. That doesn't mean something has to be observable to disprove it. Disproven until proven man.

Edited August 27, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Jyosua]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

You don't need to bother spending effort disproving it when it's obviously false. Is the possibility of my owning an invisible and intangible monkey that defecates on others when I say the code-phrase "Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care" somehow hung in limbo because it can't be disproven through physical means? No, it's obviously false by mere consideration of the different conditions that would have to be fulfilled for it to be true. In a sense, you could say vocalizing the incredibly minute possibility of them coming together could in and of itself be considered disproving it, but either way, it doesn't change the likelihood of the idea being true or false.

Your statement is paradoxical because your interpretation of disproving something is faulty. You don't need to see something to disprove that something. This would be akin to saying that in order to disprove the existence of said invisible and intangible monkey, I would need to observe it. As you said, this would prove its existence (assuming I somehow did it), so therefore the idea that you need to observe something to validly dismiss it as a possibility is patently false.

No. Just no. In order to scientifically prove something using the scientific method, it must be observable. If you don't understand this, you obviously have no concept of science. When something is intangible, it is not scientifically provable. Try proving true love using the scientific method. That's intangible. You won't be able to do it.

Where the fuck is quanta when you need him?

Yeah, in order to PROVE something, it must be observable. That doesn't mean something has to be observable to disprove it. Disproven until proven man.

Incorrect. Causality cannot be proven because it cannot technically be observed, as was pointed out by a number of philosophers, however, we assume it to be true anyways because it makes sense and is the only thing that can logically explain why things happen.

[Fox]

No. Just no. In order to scientifically prove something using the scientific method, it must be observable. If you don't understand this, you obviously have no concept of science. When something is intangible, it is not scientifically provable. Try proving true love using the scientific method. That's intangible. You won't be able to do it.

Where the fuck is quanta when you need him?

Because some people have sand in their vaginas, I'll reiterate what I said sans the spam.

You are making the claim that in order to disprove something, said thing must first be observed. You should be able to figure out why this does not work by yourself. Shit, Esau already said it:

Your statement is paradoxical because your interpretation of disproving something is faulty. You don't need to see something to disprove that something. This would be akin to saying that in order to disprove the existence of said invisible and intangible monkey, I would need to observe it. As you said, this would prove its existence (assuming I somehow did it), so therefore the idea that you need to observe something to validly dismiss it as a possibility is patently false.

(emphasis added) Edited August 27, 2009 by Fox

[quanta]

No. Just no. In order to scientifically prove something using the scientific method, it must be observable. If you don't understand this, you obviously have no concept of science. When something is intangible, it is not scientifically provable. Try proving true love using the scientific method. That's intangible. You won't be able to do it.

Where the fuck is quanta when you need him?

Scientifically speaking, if you can't observe something or any of its effects, you tend to take the pragmatic approach of assuming its existence doesn't really matter to whatever you happen to be doing (not that it doesn't exist, just that it's existence doesn't matter to whatever you are doing). Morality however, isn't exactly something that is treated scientifically. That's kind of the issue here. Some people go from "the existence of God doesn't matter to science" to mean he plain doesn't exist, others create a dichotomy between the physical realm and that of ideas or morals, others just think the whole question is intellectual masturbation.

This argument is much more akin to an argument over the philosophy of truth and the standards of proof than having anything at all to do with science.

I'd really rather not touch this with a ten-foot pole. My whole position boils down to "as long as we agree that things in this world occur for physical reasons or at least that there are no observable deviations of the world's behavior from said physics, the rest of the details come down to axioms." This kind of clashes with the worldview of some people (i.e. that miracles exist), but let's not go there.

I like to think of the most defensible views of God as being like the axiom of choice. Whether or not he exists, everything works out anyways, so you don't need to worry about whether or not you're "right" or "wrong". Pick whatever you feel is philosophically most defensible. Not that anyone else is going to know what the fuck I mean by this metaphor (a friend of mine made a joke about this and I found it surprisingly accurate if blasphemous).

Edited August 27, 2009 by quanta

[Esau of Isaac]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

You don't need to bother spending effort disproving it when it's obviously false. Is the possibility of my owning an invisible and intangible monkey that defecates on others when I say the code-phrase "Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care" somehow hung in limbo because it can't be disproven through physical means? No, it's obviously false by mere consideration of the different conditions that would have to be fulfilled for it to be true. In a sense, you could say vocalizing the incredibly minute possibility of them coming together could in and of itself be considered disproving it, but either way, it doesn't change the likelihood of the idea being true or false.

Your statement is paradoxical because your interpretation of disproving something is faulty. You don't need to see something to disprove that something. This would be akin to saying that in order to disprove the existence of said invisible and intangible monkey, I would need to observe it. As you said, this would prove its existence (assuming I somehow did it), so therefore the idea that you need to observe something to validly dismiss it as a possibility is patently false.

No. Just no. In order to scientifically prove something using the scientific method, it must be observable. If you don't understand this, you obviously have no concept of science. When something is intangible, it is not scientifically provable. Try proving true love using the scientific method. That's intangible. You won't be able to do it.

Where the fuck is quanta when you need him?

Don't lecture me on the scientific method, I haven't acted like you're some ignorant fuck so don't pull that shit like I'm a child that doesn't know the first thing of what he is speaking.

Love is an emotion, it's not provable in the way you want because it's nebulous by it's nature; I could list for you some chemicals that cause it to appear, but you wouldn't approve of that, because it is a concept and not an object. However, its existence period is easily observable through actions relative to that emotion (such as physical differences compared to the ordinary). Saying that God is anything like love is akin to the abovementioned monkeys being like love; intangibility doesn't grant something some kind of free ride when considering it next to the other ideas.

God is not the same story as love (usually). Since this is the Christian God, I'll just assume we are talking about that one. In this case, God is a being, a cognizant one that clearly (in the Bible) affects the world and its inhabitants. Intangible or not, claiming that such a being exists is pretty big. If someone asks you to prove your claim, simply citing the fact that God is immaterial is about the same as saying aliens exist and, when asked to cite your findings to show that you aren't insane, state "they are invisible".

It's all well and good for you to believe whatever you want, but by stating that God has no form, you're only going to end up shooting yourself in the foot unless it's with someone who agrees that a being can be formless in the first place.

Incorrect. Causality cannot be proven because it cannot technically be observed, as was pointed out by a number of philosophers, however, we assume it to be true anyways because it makes sense and is the only thing that can logically explain why things happen.

How in the holy hell can't causality be observed?

Edited August 27, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Jyosua]

Incorrect. Causality cannot be proven because it cannot technically be observed, as was pointed out by a number of philosophers, however, we assume it to be true anyways because it makes sense and is the only thing that can logically explain why things happen.

How in the holy hell can't causality be observed?

Because you can observe a multitude of things that imply causality indirectly, and the combination of these things is what we use to "prove it", but for all intents and purposes, causality is not an object, and therefore is unobservable.

[Crystal Shards]

The fact that in order to disprove it, you'd need to be able to observe it. If you could observe it, you would prove it. This is paradoxical.

Dude, it's a fucking comic. Learn to look at the big picture.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Crystal Shards

[Esau of Isaac]

Incorrect. Causality cannot be proven because it cannot technically be observed, as was pointed out by a number of philosophers, however, we assume it to be true anyways because it makes sense and is the only thing that can logically explain why things happen.

How in the holy hell can't causality be observed?

Because you can observe a multitude of things that imply causality indirectly, and the combination of these things is what we use to "prove it", but for all intents and purposes, causality is not an object, and therefore is unobservable.

Causality doesn't need to be an object to be proven. If a link of cause and effect is repeatedly displayed, it becomes fact that causality exists (being that we and the rest of the universe subsist on a process of cause and effect only strengthens this point). We can observe causality just as surely as we can observe light. Saying that it's impossible to prove it is akin to saying we can't prove "existence" because it's just a concept. It just doesn't make any sense.

Edit: Actually, let's take that an use it as an example. Does "existence" exist? Do I exist? Do you exist? I would hope that your answer would be "yes". "I can observe you", you would say, "so it is easy to come to the conclusion that you exist." This then also proves the first point, since I exist "existence" must exist. So we have just proven a concept by applying it to the physical world. Similarly, we can easily do the same with "causality". Pick up an object, preferably something that carries weight, then throw it. You have just observed a causal relationship, and thus proven the concept of causality.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Jyosua]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

[Freohr Datia]

Ugh... This title gave me a bad feeling, but my curiosity just had to get the better of me.

See, this is one problem with my life. I've been Christian since the day I've been born. My parents are definitely Christian. Of course I found no problems.

But now I just constantly badger myself and no matter how much I don't want to I have to question.

I hate myself for it. I've been Christian all my life and I hate that I have to question Him. I feel stupid and ugly and want to find a way to get myself to stop. I try to find ways to get myself to believe one hundred percent.

Now reading this topic... It's just made things so much worse! I should never have clicked on this. My mind's become so much more muddled now.

I've been searching for ways to help myself... I've got a few things that have helped me... But not the 100% I'm looking for.

Some pplz might've read on the celebrity topic in here that I really like these two guys Aaron Gillespie and Spencer Chamberlain. They are Christian too and I've seen or read many things about them that have helped me out. This is a real big reason why I've come to love them so much.

I just wish they could give me the 100 percent but I believe that if I try hard enough I will sometime in the future find what I am looking for. I will ask God to guide me there.

Yes, there are quite a bit of people on here who don't believe in that (thanks a whole bunch btw for making things so much harder for me... well... there's no way anyone could've seen this happening though... But... seeing how much there's arguing pplz should've forseen some trouble... could they?) and will probably think of more ways to contradict God by this... I am aware of that. I'll just have to remind myself to never click on this again =D

But... as I was saying I've always been Christian and I don't want that to change. When you've believed for something for so long, it's not really a trip to the park to convince yourself to be wrong, cause for me I think myself as a real bad person. I even listen to almost all Christian bands (Underoath, The Devil Wears Prada, Relient K, etc.).

Um... I think that's all I have to say on this matter. I don't think anybody should reply to what I just said cause I'm very very likely to never look at this again.

[Celice]

Trolling aside, you may want to study what Provincialism is, how it has affected events throughout history, and what it dictates for you.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Ugh... This title gave me a bad feeling, but my curiosity just had to get the better of me.

See, this is one problem with my life. I've been Christian since the day I've been born. My parents are definitely Christian. Of course I found no problems.

But now I just constantly badger myself and no matter how much I don't want to I have to question.

I hate myself for it. I've been Christian all my life and I hate that I have to question Him. I feel stupid and ugly and want to find a way to get myself to stop. I try to find ways to get myself to believe one hundred percent.

Now reading this topic... It's just made things so much worse! I should never have clicked on this. My mind's become so much more muddled now.

I've been searching for ways to help myself... I've got a few things that have helped me... But not the 100% I'm looking for.

Some pplz might've read on the celebrity topic in here that I really like these two guys Aaron Gillespie and Spencer Chamberlain. They are Christian too and I've seen or read many things about them that have helped me out. This is a real big reason why I've come to love them so much.

I just wish they could give me the 100 percent but I believe that if I try hard enough I will sometime in the future find what I am looking for. I will ask God to guide me there.

Yes, there are quite a bit of people on here who don't believe in that (thanks a whole bunch btw for making things so much harder for me... well... there's no way anyone could've seen this happening though... But... seeing how much there's arguing pplz should've forseen some trouble... could they?) and will probably think of more ways to contradict God by this... I am aware of that. I'll just have to remind myself to never click on this again =D

But... as I was saying I've always been Christian and I don't want that to change. When you've believed for something for so long, it's not really a trip to the park to convince yourself to be wrong, cause for me I think myself as a real bad person. I even listen to almost all Christian bands (Underoath, The Devil Wears Prada, Relient K, etc.).

Um... I think that's all I have to say on this matter. I don't think anybody should reply to what I just said cause I'm very very likely to never look at this again.

You're going to force yourself to believe something you don't really believe because you think that you'll be a bad person if you don't believe it?

What type of God would force someone to do that shit?

Relevant.

Edited August 28, 2009 by ZXValaRevan

[Esau of Isaac]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

*jumps out from behind a bush with his trucker hat*

SHWA, SHWA, YOU JUST GOT PUNK'D MAN! YOU JUST GOT PUNK'D!

SHWA, SHWA! THAT WAS ALL ME MAN, ALL ME!

[Florete]

Ugh... This title gave me a bad feeling, but my curiosity just had to get the better of me.

See, this is one problem with my life. I've been Christian since the day I've been born. My parents are definitely Christian. Of course I found no problems.

But now I just constantly badger myself and no matter how much I don't want to I have to question.

I hate myself for it. I've been Christian all my life and I hate that I have to question Him. I feel stupid and ugly and want to find a way to get myself to stop. I try to find ways to get myself to believe one hundred percent.

Now reading this topic... It's just made things so much worse! I should never have clicked on this. My mind's become so much more muddled now.

I've been searching for ways to help myself... I've got a few things that have helped me... But not the 100% I'm looking for.

Some pplz might've read on the celebrity topic in here that I really like these two guys Aaron Gillespie and Spencer Chamberlain. They are Christian too and I've seen or read many things about them that have helped me out. This is a real big reason why I've come to love them so much.

I just wish they could give me the 100 percent but I believe that if I try hard enough I will sometime in the future find what I am looking for. I will ask God to guide me there.

Yes, there are quite a bit of people on here who don't believe in that (thanks a whole bunch btw for making things so much harder for me... well... there's no way anyone could've seen this happening though... But... seeing how much there's arguing pplz should've forseen some trouble... could they?) and will probably think of more ways to contradict God by this... I am aware of that. I'll just have to remind myself to never click on this again =D

But... as I was saying I've always been Christian and I don't want that to change. When you've believed for something for so long, it's not really a trip to the park to convince yourself to be wrong, cause for me I think myself as a real bad person. I even listen to almost all Christian bands (Underoath, The Devil Wears Prada, Relient K, etc.).

Um... I think that's all I have to say on this matter. I don't think anybody should reply to what I just said cause I'm very very likely to never look at this again.

Trust me, I know exactly how you feel. I had the same upbringing. Christian family all around, Christian music, "Jesus loves you" signs everywhere, Atheists are horrible and stupid people, the works. Then I joined this forum and my naive self found that there were actually smart atheists with relevant reasons to not believe in God. As much as I wanted to believe in God, to tell myself that these people weren't right, my brain kept telling me they actually were. I struggled with this thought for a while, not being sure what to believe.

I eventually chose what my brain was telling me. I walked away from Christianity. It felt strange at first, but it feels right now, like I know that my head has been set straight after hearing both sides and not having just one side shoved into me all the time. You do not have to do this if you feel you can still believe in Him. I just wanted to tell you what someone else in a very similar situation chose to do. I hope you end up reading this and find that it helps you, no matter what you end up choosing.

And I love Relient K.

[Jyosua]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

[Agro]

The word exist and existence is a word, not an abstract concept. It is basically a state indicating "proven", and is akin to a synonym for the word. Therefore your example does not apply.

So you are saying that existentialism doesn't exist.

Okay. You win. I just got Punk'd.

How does that even matter? Existentialism is a philosophy concerning the meaning of our existence, and moreso than that, focuses on aspects of free will and our actions. Existence itself is a different issue.

Existentialism and existence are pretty well related, methinks. Free will and actions is bordering causality, though.