Christian God, Impossible? FTW!

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Are you Christian or Athiest?

Christian
9
28%
Athiest
16
50%
Agnostic
1
3%
Don't Care.
6
19%
 
Total votes : 32

Postby Nick » Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:47 pm

bo198214 wrote:That Goedels mathematical proof is not correct, thats for. I was so excited to see a mathematical proof of god...


You can't prove that there is a God that exists. You can only prove that a God is possible to exist.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby bo198214 » Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:43 pm

I must admit that I dont understand the proof enough, that I could judge whether its wrong or right. I would interpret the "positive" as "true".
But do you think, that the proof is formally wrong, Pwrong?

And yes, the main problem with a mathematical existence proof, is that that thing then exists like the number 6. I.e. in the realm of ideas it is thinkable und so it exists there, for our material world, hm what would it mean the number 6 to exist? That there is a statue depicting a 6 *gg* or that it is written? Does it mean there is a possibility for 6 in our world?
You see the mathematical focus is quite different.
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby PWrong » Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:51 am

You can't prove that there is a God that exists. You can only prove that a God is possible to exist.

Of course you can. If you died and actually saw God, and he sent you to heaven/hell, that would prove to you that God exists. Besides, if you couldn't prove that God exists, then atheism wouldn't be falsifiable (and therefore not a valid philosophy).

I would interpret the "positive" as "true".

I thought that too, but that doesn't work. A property isn't a statement, so it can't be true or false. The statement "God has property x" may be true, but Godel talks about properties that are positive themselves.

I'm actually not sure about the definition of God. I don't know whether it means:
"x is God-like iff every property of x is positive"
or
"x is God-like iff for every possible property p, x has p"

These are very different statements, and the whole argument only works if we assume the second definition.

Another problem is that it proves that God exists in the same way that the number 6 exists.

On the other hand, you could just replace the word "exists" with "exists physically in the universe".
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby PWrong » Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:02 pm

I'm surprised how many selected "don't care". Although that's not mutually exclusive with the options. I'd guess most people who don't care are agnostic or atheist. And there should probably be an option for "other".
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby bo198214 » Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:10 pm

exactly, I voted vor "dont care" because I dont fit into the other categories and "dont care" is nearest to "other".
bo198214
Tetronian
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:03 pm
Location: Berlin - Germany

Postby Universally_thinking » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:51 pm

Logically, defintion of god
creator of life,
sustains life,
great,
powerfull

if thats the definition then the Sun is our god, it does make sense.
Universally_thinking
Dionian
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: UK

Postby Nick » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:24 pm

The sun doesn't create life, the sun is not omnipotent, and the sun is not benevolent. It's a hot piece of rock. Or something.

Besides, if you couldn't prove that God exists, then atheism wouldn't be falsifiable (and therefore not a valid philosophy).


You're right, it wouldn't be a philosophy, it would turn into a fact.

Something similar applies to Christianity. You go to heaven through faith in God, following the ten commandments, and being baptised (Catholocism, that is). All three of those must be true to reach heaven. If it was ever proved that a God exists, then it is impossible to have faith in it; because we know it to exist, the necessity of faith is eliminated. Which means that if proven, we all go to hell.

Of course you can. If you died and actually saw God, and he sent you to heaven/hell, that would prove to you that God exists.


Which means that it is impossible to get to heaven, because his existence is proven the very minute you lay eyes on him.

EDIT: How do you know the sun isn't our god? Have you ever seen God? He could be a flying spaghetti monster for all you know ;)
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby PWrong » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:52 pm

exactly, I voted vor "dont care" because I dont fit into the other categories and "dont care" is nearest to "other".

So do you follow some other religion, or are you just a theist in general?

You're right, it wouldn't be a philosophy, it would turn into a fact.

Why can't a fact also be a philosophy?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby Nick » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:53 pm

PWrong wrote:Why can't a fact also be a philosophy?


Dictionary.com wrote:the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.


Since it is a "rational" investigation of what is known to be true, a philosophy itself is not true. I think. :?
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby PWrong » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:22 am

dictionary.com also wrote:3. a system of philosophical doctrine:
5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby batmanmg » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:27 pm

irockyou wrote:EDIT: How do you know the sun isn't our god? Have you ever seen God? He could be a flying spaghetti monster for all you know ;)


no he doesn't fly. he floats. and its more like a linguini monster with a nose and no other features. god likes noses.


on a more serious note, god created man in his image according to the bible. so he's human or human like in appearance --> not the sun. He could live in the sun though. hibernating until pluto decides to knock off earth for saying its not a planet.
too many people have self replicating sigs. Don't copy this.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby gerren » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:26 pm

this website (the one "irockyou" posted) has many flaws. It does not give the 360 degree view of how god works or the christian religion for that matter. Why is it that this website only attacks the christian religion??? God gives YOU the choice to accept him and be with him for eternity, or to reject him and go to hell. of course God saw the suffering and the damned going to hell when he was in the process of creating the world. God knew that this would of course happen, but not by his fault. It would be the fault of the free-willed person who damned himself God is not bound by time, He is not bound by anything for that matter. This website has it all wrong and is what would many christians would be considered created by the devil because of its single attack on christianity. I am certainly ok with atheists (i used to be one but i was not converted because i read the bible and said "well this is an attractive religion i think ill take it"), but what really bugs me is the Antichristian people.
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby gerren » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:41 pm

You go to heaven through faith in God, following the ten commandments, and being baptised (Catholocism, that is). All three of those must be true to reach heaven. If it was ever proved that a God exists, then it is impossible to have faith in it; because we know it to exist, the necessity of faith is eliminated. Which means that if proven, we all go to hell.


Actually, you dont have to be baptised, neither do you have to always follow the ten commandments (its ok as long as you repent and ask for forgiveness).
Your argument is:
1. Faith, Following ten commandments, and baptism are basically tickets to heaven.
2. If god is proved to exist, faith is elimated because it is unneccesary.
3. Therefore, due to no faith then you go to hell.

These are very technically correct arguments to a CERTAIN extent, but faith is defined as allegiance to duty or a person, so if God were proven to exist, wouldnt people's allegiance to Him increase??? You seem to think of faith as the substitute for the absence of evidence---and it is not. Therefore, the argument seems to be flawed (or at least i hope so, but you can examine this further :) )
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby Nick » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:50 am

Hmmm... I see your point, yes. It depends on how you define "faith". Dictionary.com and Webster's Ninth Colegiate Dictionary would disagree with you, and I would disagree with you. You don't put faith in something if you know it exists. I don't need faith to know that you are an actual person, and not a computer; the fact that you can respond intellegently to posts proves this.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby gerren » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:51 am

Actually, I did look up faith in an online dictionary (Im pretty sure it was Webster Merriam's Dictionary) to be politically correct. But can God's existence be proven? Since it cannot be proven or disproven with today's standards as well as future standards until Christ's Second Coming, the argument itself is flawed. This is a hypothetical question. Many people and I know that God exists (some educated and some not), and they have allegiance/faith to God dont they??? Also, you must also look at the way faith is defined by the majority of believers, as you know most havnt looked the word up in the dictionary and therefore use it as a word to account for the lack of today's scientific evidence of God.

When defining the words most people use today, looking the word's exact definition up on the internet is probably a bad idea because when you get a person to define faith and then you tell them what its definition is in the dictionary, they will have a confused expression on their faces.
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby Nick » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:11 pm

Actually, God can be proven; he can come down to Earth.

1+2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6

1. Postulate 1: God is benevolent.
2. Postulate 2: Those who don't believe in God will go to Hell.
3. God does not want us to go to Hell.
4. God would do (and can do, since Postulate 3: God is all powerful) anything to make us believe in him so we don't go to Hell.
5. To save me from Hell, God must prove his existence.
6. God has not proven his existence to me, therefore steps 1 and/or 2 have been contradicted and cannot be true.

Therefore, either God is no benevolent or faith is not required to go to Heaven.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby gerren » Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:31 pm

God created us out of love, and he gave us free will to believe in Him or to not believe in Him. Just because he may want something of you does not mean that He will force you to do his bidding with is omnipotence. Postulate number 4 is wrong, actually. God gives us sufficient information of His existence and then lets you decide. How can people say that they havnt been contacted by God or have had no experiences with him when they havnt given him a chance? God is a being that requires you to reach out to him, and then he will be a part of your life.

Postulate number 5 is also flawed. God does not save exactly save you from hell. You save yourself from hell by letting yourself know that He exists. God does not have to prove himself to you. You prove him to yourself. That is a part of the free will that God gives you.
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:48 am

Postulate number 4 is wrong, actually.

That's a step, not a postulate. I have only two postulates, I believe. Also, God does not give us suffiecient evidence in any respect. I used to be a Christian, up until age 12, and I never felt the presence of God, even though I sternly believed in him. I thought I did; but it most certainly isn't. You figure that out when you become an athiest. When people tell you something is true as a child, you believe them. When people tell you that you will be touched by God, you start believing that you will be; then you start to look for excuses that could be contact with God, and convince yourself that yes, it was contact. This strengthens your belief in God, and the cycle starts over.

Also, why would a benevolent God give us free will if he knows that some of us will choose not to believe in him, and those who don't will go to hell? Why does he even make a hell to begin with?[/quote]
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:05 am

Yes, I know what it is like to be an atheist, as I was one for about a year. Yes, God does give me sufficient information in the bible. I think that the rest was to be learned by myself or learned in the afterlife. Anyways then step number 4 was wrong by the way. A benevolent God would give us free will so that he wouldnt have "robots", if you will walking up and down the street worshipping him without their own thoughts included. Someone who is benevolent will give you as much as they can, correct? So that would mean that God would give you the choice to accept him or not (free will is the most special thing we have besides life, dont you think? He lets you decide how you want to control your life (out of his love of course).

And yes, that is why I was a christian before (because my parents were christians and I was raised that way until i began becoming curious and asking questions as well as finding every resource to answer them).
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby PWrong » Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:58 am

1+2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6

1. Postulate 1: God is benevolent.
2. Postulate 2: Those who don't believe in God will go to Hell.
3. God does not want us to go to Hell.
4. God would do (and can do, since Postulate 3: God is all powerful) anything to make us believe in him so we don't go to Hell.
5. To save me from Hell, God must prove his existence.
6. God has not proven his existence to me, therefore steps 1 and/or 2 have been contradicted and cannot be true.

Therefore, either God is no benevolent or faith is not required to go to Heaven.


Gerren's right in this case. 1&2 do not imply 3
You've assumed that:
Postulate 4: Going to Hell is worse than being forced to believe in God.

Would you accept this postulate, Gerren?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:04 am

i would agree. its a default ticket to heaven. with our imperfection, why not have that? lol but i would rather hav free will than forced worship tho
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:06 am

Also, pwrong, when you talk about self replicating molecules in the beginning, you are correct, but most of them were probably prions. Prions are proteins that basically can destroy cells and they self replicate like a virus, BUT although they self replicate doesnt mean theyre LIVING, correct? prions are nonliving
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby houserichichi » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:44 am

Viruses aren't alive either even though they evolve. Viruses and prions both cannot reproduce.

If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected...this is fringe knowledge for me. :oops:
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:51 am

Actually, housrichici, viruses can reproduce by connecting to cells and going through phases such as attatchment, penetration, biosynthesis, maturation and release. Prions also reproduce and replicate themselves (this also points to my argument) without life by folding other proteins to not function properly. So, there obviously there is a difference between self replicating molecule that will eventually be the ingredients for life (as life cannot just come into a molecule and therefore a God/Creator created it) or a self replicating molecule such as a protein that will always be the same and only evolve by adapting to its surroundings through chemical interactions (i.e. the common cold or mad cow disease)j
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:20 am

Universally_thinking wrote:Logically, defintion of god
creator of life,
sustains life,
great,
powerfull

if thats the definition then the Sun is our god, it does make sense.


Your argument is flawed. The sun did not create life. It is a main part of our life, as if it wasnt here then it is obvious what would happen. How would you define great and powerful? Im not too sure about the following comment, but i will put it out there and would be happy if someone could correct me. God does not sustain life; He can alter it, but dont we sustain ourselves until we die? or does God support our sustanation(that probably isnt a word but im looking for its noun form) by letting us live and letting us take care of the rest? Very interesting indeed :)
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby PWrong » Fri Oct 27, 2006 9:30 am

i would agree. its a default ticket to heaven. with our imperfection, why not have that? lol but i would rather hav free will than forced worship tho

I'm not sure what you're agreeing to. If you agree that going to hell is worse than being forced to believe in God, then God (being benevolent) will naturally force us to believe in Him, for our own sake. Maybe he prefers to give us the choice because it amuses him or something, but that's not benevolent, it's selfish.

Viruses aren't alive either even though they evolve. Viruses and prions both cannot reproduce.

How can they evolve if they can't replicate? :\

Also, pwrong, when you talk about self replicating molecules in the beginning, you are correct, but most of them were probably prions. Prions are proteins that basically can destroy cells and they self replicate like a virus, BUT although they self replicate doesnt mean theyre LIVING, correct? prions are nonliving

This should be in the thread about abiogenesis. Soon after you have one self replicating object, you will have millions of them. Slight differences in their structure will accumalate and result in a living object.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:33 pm

Im very sorry for that mistake. I know very well that prions and viruses can replicate/reproduce by either misfolding other proteins or infecting a cell and going through the such processes needed for replication :).

God (being benevolent) will naturally force us to believe in Him, for our own sake


Is that a hypothetical statement? If it is then I wont refute that statement, but if you are implying that it is truth, then you are wrong (God gives us free will out of love).'

Slight differences in their structure will accumalate and result in a living object.


During evolution, how do you know that the changes in the molecule's structure would be in favor of life? And how would YOU define life? Would these self replicating molecules which were so complex actually give way for the other complex parts of the cell just by the molecule's affinity for each other?
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby Nick » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:04 pm

Why wouldn't God want robots? So far, you said that God wouldn't want people walking down the street worshipping him. Why wouldn't he? God is perfect, and would be content with robots. He is all-powerful, so he could create us to be content as robots.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby gerren » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:57 pm

Yes, he has the power to create us as "robots", but he chooses to give us free will by his love and affection, knowing that we ourselves would prefer it. God is perfect, but that doesnt mean that he has to have us worshipping him like robots-he would like it but he still chooses to give us free will
gerren
Trionian
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:01 am

Postby PWrong » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:00 am

If God appeared before me, I would still be able to choose whether to believe in him or not, and whether to worship him or not. There's no loss of free will. In fact, in a sense I have more free will, because I'm able to make an informed decision. Think about how much free will you would you have if you were blind, deaf and had no sense of touch. More information implies more free will. Think about how much free will you would you have if you were blind, deaf and had no sense of touch.

So if God values free will, and also wants people to get into heaven, then He is morally obligated to show Himself.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest