Logic dictates that there is a God!

[WidowMakers]

Is it ever ok to shoot someone? Why is everything that has to do with god a dichotomy? Why is there never a middle ground?

Not everything is a dichotomy with God. Just his moral absolutes.

But please answer your question?
-Is it ok to shoot someone?

In certain situations, yes.

-Would you be pleased if someone shot you (and you did nothing to deserve it)?

No.

-Would you be OK with someone shooting you daughter or mom or friend?

If my daughter or mom or friend was doing something that would deservedly get them shot, then yes. If not, then no.

There are plenty of reasons why I can justify killing someone. If my daughter were to move to detonate an explosive charge that would kill others, I would be justified in killing her (I might not be capable of making that decision, but the moral imperative stands). Would I not? Where is the absolute? Should I just allow that to happen?

Gods are full of dichotomies. The real world very rarely experiences them.

I think I needed to be more specific in my explanation. You and your family have done nothing to your attacker. They don't know you at all.
Based on this, would it be OK for me to kill you. The answer would be no.

So if I think it is ok.....and you think it is wrong then we have an issue.
1). Either this is subjective and we are both right in our views (regardless of how they affect the otehr person)
2.) Or there is only 1 right thing and one of us is wrong. And if one of us is wrong (and I would say that would be the killer) then the other is right. Thus NOT subjective.

Rational people will agree that option #2 is where they stand. To agree with option #1 is anarchy and stupid. But option #1 is subjective and what many claim to uphold in their lives. People who claim subjective morality do not apply it on a daily basis because if harm or bad things befall them from another, they claim justice and retribution, but why.

They know some things are not subjective but absolute.
And if some things are absolute (killing and innocent person for no reason) why is it that way?

[WidowMakers]

I conclude that something else, beyond what we can measure, see, touch, and test exists.
I conclude that is is God. How do you respond to this?

Right, you just said those things do not inherently exist, but suddenly you jumped to the conclusion that God must exist because of that.

Where's the logic in that "leap of faith"?

What I said was these things exist to us. We use them, we apply them, we depend on them every day as we make decisions and play and work, etc.

-If we can see that these things are not material (made of matter, energy)
-If we show they are not dependent of humans to exist
-If we show that they are unchanging (same yesterday and 500 years from now)

Then there must be something outside of our physical realm because these
things don't exist here (in our space time) but they are real and exist somewhere.

I am just stating that I feel that God exists outside Space and Time.
God (and for this discussion whatever deity you wish) is who sets absolute morality, mathematics, logic, scientific laws and is eternal, unchanging

[AAFitz]

I conclude that something else, beyond what we can measure, see, touch, and test exists.
I conclude that is is God. How do you respond to this?

Right, you just said those things do not inherently exist, but suddenly you jumped to the conclusion that God must exist because of that.

Where's the logic in that "leap of faith"?

What I said was these things exist to us. We use them, we apply them, we depend on them every day as we make decisions and play and work, etc.

-If we can see that these things are not material (made of matter, energy)
-If we show they are not dependent of humans to exist
-If we show that they are unchanging (same yesterday and 500 years from now)

Then there must be something outside of our physical realm because these
things don't exist here (in our space time) but they are real and exist somewhere.

I am just stating that I feel that God exists outside Space and Time.
God (and for this discussion whatever deity you wish) is who sets absolute morality, mathematics, logic, scientific laws and is eternal, unchanging

Well, I suppose it would be logical to assume that if there were a God, he would have to exist outside of time and space...but that is because it is illogical to assume he could possibly exist inside of it.

In any case, to say there can be no proof, no test, and that God is outside of everything we know that exists is fine....but saying its logical to assume he does is not.

[john9blue]

Well, I suppose it would be logical to assume that if there were a God, he would have to exist outside of time and space...but that is because it is illogical to assume he could possibly exist inside of it.

In any case, to say there can be no proof, no test, and that God is outside of everything we know that exists is fine....but saying its logical to assume he does is not.

- Why not both?

- Why? Proof is not needed for a belief to be logical.

[AAFitz]

Is it ever ok to shoot someone? Why is everything that has to do with god a dichotomy? Why is there never a middle ground?

Not everything is a dichotomy with God. Just his moral absolutes.

But please answer your question?
-Is it ok to shoot someone?

In certain situations, yes.

-Would you be pleased if someone shot you (and you did nothing to deserve it)?

No.

-Would you be OK with someone shooting you daughter or mom or friend?

If my daughter or mom or friend was doing something that would deservedly get them shot, then yes. If not, then no.

There are plenty of reasons why I can justify killing someone. If my daughter were to move to detonate an explosive charge that would kill others, I would be justified in killing her (I might not be capable of making that decision, but the moral imperative stands). Would I not? Where is the absolute? Should I just allow that to happen?

Gods are full of dichotomies. The real world very rarely experiences them.

I think I needed to be more specific in my explanation. You and your family have done nothing to your attacker. They don't know you at all.
Based on this, would it be OK for me to kill you. The answer would be no.

So if I think it is ok.....and you think it is wrong then we have an issue.
1). Either this is subjective and we are both right in our views (regardless of how they affect the otehr person)
2.) Or there is only 1 right thing and one of us is wrong. And if one of us is wrong (and I would say that would be the killer) then the other is right. Thus NOT subjective.

Rational people will agree that option #2 is where they stand. To agree with option #1 is anarchy and stupid. But option #1 is subjective and what many claim to uphold in their lives. People who claim subjective morality do not apply it on a daily basis because if harm or bad things befall them from another, they claim justice and retribution, but why.

They know some things are not subjective but absolute.
And if some things are absolute (killing and innocent person for no reason) why is it that way?

Not everyone does think killing an innocent person is wrong for no reason. People and governments have done it since the dawn of man. They have done it in the name of religion perhaps more than any other cause. We have come to learn and have decided that killing innocent people is wrong....and that sentiment hardly applies to all man.

What is happening is you are confusing what you have learned and come to believe, with what you would believe had you not learned it. Your feeling that God exists, and that killing is wrong, along with all other things that you hold as your main belief system have all been learned. They have all been taught to you from someone else. They were taught and learned since you were a child and you have believed them since you were capable of believing so perhaps you dont realize that had you simply been taught different things, and different ideas, you would believe them with the same passion as you do what you believe now. You would be hardwired to believe them. This does not make the beliefs correct however, or absolute, or anything beyond a function of timing and placement in the world.

To approach the subject logically, one must remove all that one was told by another person, to really understand what is absolute, and no one person can do that, so one must look at all people with all different beliefs, and then one realizes there is no absolute, there is no belief that is correct, or that is anything beyond that.

Racism is a better example than killing. Most educated people realize the reasons why racism is wrong. They may still be racists, but when analyzed, its simply wrong, and can be scientifically proven to be so. Race is such a small indicator of potential that it can simply be ignored. However, from birth many are taught the exact opposite. They are taught that race is fundamentally important and that some are better than others simply because of their race. They simply believe it is an absolute. Others believe racism is wrong and that it is an absolute that it is. However, this feeling of absolute is subjective, and is always subjective, and learning is what makes it an absolute.

Now, with killing, it seems an absolute that we somehow must have been born with this morality and imparted it into our souls, however, it is not unique. Most social animals in the animal kingdom approach killing the same way we do. They do not kill innocent members of their own species for the hell of it. They usually only do it to protect their area, their feeding grounds, or to take over the group. They may also kill the weak, though usually something else takes care of that for them.

Even a colony of ants will live in harmony and will live by an absolute law of not killing healthy members of there society. However, if one attacks or is perceived to attack them, they will lay down their lives to protect their family. Bees will do the same. They kill themselves to save their family. They do so without fear or hesitation. Bees will further never, ever harm their own group, unless they present a threat to it, or a threat is perceived. This however, is not morality, or any absolute that was needed from a divine gift, it is simply survival. And since these animals of lower intelligence, almost never simply kill for other reasons, and only for survival, it could be said that they are more moral than humans. That they have a more absolute idea of right and wrong. One could also state that because animals almost never murder their own for any other reason than food, protection, or protection of their kind, that they must follow the laws of some higher God, even more so than humans who kill all the time, and for reasons that typically dont justify a harsh word, let alone murder. However, stating that God must have made laws of only killing when needed in ants is just a bit ridiculous. Its clearly a matter of survival, and in the end, there would be no ants if they all went on murderous rampages in their own kind. They need no God to give them morality to not kill, they need only the need for survival, which every living creature on earth has to varying degrees.

So, it is not logical to assume that because some of us have learned or have decided that killing "innocent" people is wrong, is any kind of absolute and only possible because of an outside deity. In fact, not all even follow it, believe it, and throughout history, killing innocent people has perhaps been one of mans most disticntive traits, and again, often in the name of their God at the time.

What is not logical, is that a God, would impart this subtle morality, in such a weak way that it could be so easily misconstrued, and it therefore far more logical that this morality is simply a learned idea, and as a result of the natural empathy that we share with our species, and one that has developed for our own survival. If we were born with instincts to instead not have this empathy, we simply wouldnt be here, because we would not have taken care of our children, given our lives to protect our people and would have simply not been able to live socially, which is the only reason we were able to survive against creatures, many times our capacity for killing. (and I mean mammals...not dinosaurs which lived millions of years ago, and for which there is not even one example of the millions of fossils that even suggest man was among them.)

[AAFitz]

Well, I suppose it would be logical to assume that if there were a God, he would have to exist outside of time and space...but that is because it is illogical to assume he could possibly exist inside of it.

In any case, to say there can be no proof, no test, and that God is outside of everything we know that exists is fine....but saying its logical to assume he does is not.

- Why not both?

- Why? Proof is not needed for a belief to be logical.

No, of course not, but Proof is not needed for a belief to be illogical either.

In this case however, there is no logical reason for believing, and there are far more reasons to back up it being illogical than it being logical. In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

Many were killed to continue the teaching of this belief, which is the only reason it exists in the form that it does today, and even today, it exists with so many variations many of which are so contradictory, that the more logical explanation is that man has simply carried this belief through ages of generations, and typically breaking the rules of said believes, to continue them along the way.

It was logical to believe the earth was flat.
It was logical to believe the earth was the center of the universe.
It was logical to believe the sun was the center of the universe.
It was logical to believe the earth could have been created only six thousand years ago.
It was logical to believe that zeus lived in the heavens and that atlas was holding up the world.

Now however, it is illogical to believe any of these, because they have been proven to be untrue.

[Lionz]

You mean to suggests millions of dinosaur fossils have been found AAFitz? See something here that says only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found as of 1994?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=450

What should we expect to find in terms of fossil evidence if humans and dinosaurs have coexisted? Human skeletons and dinosaur skeletons curled up next to one eachother? How many fossilized human skeletons have been found in general?

Earth was not created in 6,000 years maybe, but does something prove that earth was not created about 6,000 years ago?

And what proves the sun or the earth are not at a center point of so called outerspace if something does? Could either not theoretically be and yet still be part of grand clockwork themselves? Note: I'm not claiming either is at the center by any means perhaps, but I wonder what you actually have proof of maybe. Is there a star that's not apparently moving away from the sun and earth? Not counting the sun itself, if it's technically a star?

[PLAYER57832]

Well I will do these one at a time.

Step 1: Laws of Logic
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Wrong. "laws of logic" are simply creations of humans, ways we organize information, debate and thought processes. They therefore are very much changeable.

Also, we already know that much of human thought is, in truth not logical at all. Feelings, emotions are absolutely not logical. In many cases, our actions are not purely logical.

In informal logic, people use three basic, logical principles which are regarded as the three basic "laws of logic" or "laws of thought"

1. The law of identity: p is p
2. The law of non-contradiction: p and not-p cannot be true at the same time (i.e. It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time cannot be true)
3. The law of the excluded middle: p or not-p must be true (i.e. Either it is raining or it is not raining)

Can we all agree on these? I will assume we can.

These apply mostly in a closed, limited system which we understand. When you have no idea of the variables, impacts, etc, then often logic just does not apply.

Anything regarding God is not required to follow human logic. Certainly, I say belief in God is logical. However, that is very different from saying that logic requires there be God.

Now why do these logical laws exist?
Do they really exist because humans exist?

Look, logic, "laws" are just explanations. Nothing more. They are ways we use to describe and understand things around us. We can, at any time, find that our understanding is wrong and then will need to modify the rules. This happens all the time. It is quite unlikely to happen when referring to some very basic principals, at least here on Earth, because they have been tested so often and so thoroughly its just almost impossible that a new error would be found now. However, we have no idea whether these things really apply or how well they apply outside our galaxy, never mind outside our universe.

If all of humanity died right now, would these laws still apply to nature?

Most of what you percievet to be laws are really not, not in the way you are trying to put forth here.

If all that was left in the universe was space and hydrogen, would these laws still apply?

You are mixing completely unrelated subjects. Most of nature is not at all logical.
Again, logic is really a way of talking about how people think, of helping humans to analyze things objectively, to organize thinking. It is a tool.

hydrogen wouldn't "be hydrogen and not-hydrogen" at the same time.

No, but an electron can be a wave and a particle at the same time.
Anyway, what makes hydrogen is just a definition. If enough of the right scientists (in the correct field, with the credibility needed, etc.) agreed, that definition can be changed. In fact, though I don't know that is the case now, many times what most of us understand as a simple definition is actually not true.

hydrogen couldn't "exist and not exists" in a particular place at the same time.

Perhaps not, perhaps yes. Quantum physics seem to show something very much along those lines is happening.

So if these conceptual ideas still exist without humans, where did they come from?
If logic exists and there is nothing but nature (again from the naturalistic perspective that all that exists is in nature and nothing exists outside of it) what makes up logic?

Again, you operate from several false assumptions.

con•cept -

1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.

So if a concept is something formed in a mind and these logical laws can exist and still apply exist without humans or animals or anything but hydrogen and space, where did they come from?

You leap from point to point when none has actually been proven. Though you argue logic, you are not actually using logic here yourself. In large part, this is because you don't percieve all the possibilities that exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 2: Laws of Math
1) They exist
2) They don't

There is not another answer to that question.

Again, you refer to things created by human beings. The laws of math apply, for math. The problem you have made in the past, and seem to be making here is to suggest that because these laws hold true within a very specific framework, they apply to ALL cases. This is simply not true.
Laws of physical math, for example, do not necessarily apply at the quantum (sub-atomic, etc,) level.
Look at Einstein.

Real simple.
Men may have made the icons/notations and symbols to let us "do math" but the concepts and reality of math existed before we used it.
Again if all men died right now, 2+2 would still equal 4.
Before men existed 2 things + 2 things = 4 things.
Principles of math exist whether we are here or not.
Principles of math exist whether we understand them or not.
These principle have not been invented, they have been discovered.
And since these mathematical principle cannot be made of matter or energy (again they are concepts) they cannot be created by man or nature.

Sort of true, but these "rules" can absolutely be misunderstood. They can be misstated, and we can find that these rules we believed need to be modified given other information. This is always a possibility. Not, perhaps, a likely possibility, but a possibility. Not only that, but as we learn more about the universe, we may find that these things really don't apply everywhere.
Just to take an example, 1 + 1 + 2. BUT.. what about living creatures. Sometimes then 1+1=3 I realize that sounds silly, but that is only because we all understand the limits, the boundaries of the statements. When you are talking about a universe of infinite possibilities, no such base understanding exists. There might be many things we have missed. If an alien came from a different universe, he might have such a different idea of procreation that this concept of one person arising from another might be utterly confusing. Again, that example sounds silly, but in an infinite universe, outside the boundaries of what we understand, anything is possible.

So, no, these rules need not be universal. In science, just about anything given as a "law" is predicated by an understood addition "given our known universe".

Where did they come from (if all there is is matter and energy - naturalism view) ?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 3: Laws of Science
1) They exist
2) They don't"

Science has few real laws. Those that exist are always provisional. A big problem you have made in the past, just as an example, is to ignore the often unstated, but ALWAYS understood caveat "within our known universe". Therefore, as an example, the second law of thermodynamics has very little application to creation. We just don't know what existed back then.

Science starts with the present and builds itself back, as things are proven. There is almost always a possibility for error, even within laws. When it comes to laws, that "error" may mean just the limits of our universe. Thirty years ago, we had no knowledge of quantum physics or chaos mathematics. These came about because of apparent "violations" of known "rules". Such change is ALWAYS that case.

Only the Bible is unchangeable... except, even in that, while the Bible does not change, we change and therefore the way we understand it changes. This was true from the beginning. There never was one, unified church. It was unified in the worship of God, Christ, etc. However, about most other things there was dispute. There were always many churches. The Bible includes the thoughts of Mark, Paul, Peter, precisely because they each differ. The inclusions were not "errors", they were intentional. Because people are different.

While I believe the Bible is unchangeable I am not trying to introduce that into any of my arguments. In my initial statement when posting I specifically said my goal was not to prove Jesus or the God of the Bible, but to show how NOT believing a higher power (whatever that may be) is not logical.

Ok now onto the laws of science.
When you add hydrogen and oxygen together (at ideal temp, pressure) what do you get? Water
What if you do that in Colorado? The moon? 5 billion light years on another planet? You always get water.

Given certain conditions of pressure, etc., probably. However, we don't know this to be true. We believe it to be so, but we don't know it. We won't know until it can be tested in some manner.

Also, even within our own world, this is not absolute. It occurs given certain particular conditions. You might get water, you might also get hydrogen peroxide or alchohol, etc.

When you drop a rock how fast will it accelerate towards the ground? 9.81 m/s^2 (yes I know it varies depending on where you are)
What if you do that each day for 50 years?
Will gravity change?
Do we except it to change?
Or do we accept it as an unchanging law?

Gravity is not a law, though I believe there are laws regarding gravity. Anyhow, gravity very much does change depending on the objects considered. Scientists now question even some of the basic ideas we have held regarding attraction of particles and objects. We don't understand these things fully, yet.

Think about scientific provable principles. They are repeatable. They are the same every day? Why?
Why do we think that the universe came from chaos and randomness only to depend on the order and consistency of it now?
If it was random and chaotic then (you know, when the 1st and 2nd laws did not apply for all you “Big Bang”-ers out there) why should we believe they are constant now?

Look, even if you add God into the equation, you still have the question of from where God came. In truth, this is just a dead argument. It is no more logical to assume God sprang from nothing than it is to assume nothing came from nothing.

A third alternative is that God, and all around us are co-existing, essentially that all time exists at once. However, this is a difficult concept for us to even think about, never mind understand, analyze and prove.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 4: Laws of Absolute Morals
1) They exist
2) They don't

There are really only 2 answers here. if you think morality is relative, then you believe that absolute morals don't exist.
If you believe they don't exist, then murder/rape/child molestation is ok in some circumstances?
Do you really believe that.?

Baloney. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, yet it is commonly given that it is OK to steal for food under specific circumstances. Human beings are not God. We cry for rules because they are simple, easy to follow. However, God is greater. God can see beyond any and all petty limitations human being place on ourselves.

To God, there is no inconsistency. Only to fully fallible, entirely limited human beings.

Even beyond that, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that there are some rules that apply to some people, that may be necessary for some, but not for all. Christ tells us to watch the log in our own eye, not the stick in our neighbor's. One person might only find peace and God by living in a very tightly controlled community. Others can live with far more freedom. Each of us has our place. God has room for all of us.

Again not talking about the Bible but I will respond to your stealing and biblical laws response first.

Stealing. Where does the Bible say “don’t steal….unless you have to”? You are making things up.
-just because people justify stealing or telling a lie, does not make it ok in God’s eyes
polygamy God did not approve of this at all.
"When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17).
-Just because people do things in the Bible does not mean that God approves.
-http://www.giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

I am going to set these aside for now, else this is going to spin off even more.

But now onto Absolute Morals

-Is anything OK to do? Why?
-Who is right if two opposing views square off on a topic? The large group? The stronger group?
-Is it ok to rape children? I don’t want to know if it happens or if others think it is ok, what do you think?
-Would you care if someone shot you? Why? What if they thought it was ok? Who is right?
-Was Hitler right? Would he have been right or wrong if he won WW2?
-Who determines right and wrong?
-if two people exist on an island and there is no government or jurisdiction and one person wants to kill the other, is he wrong?

You are completely missing the point.
First, of course I pretty much share your values. We both accept and follow the Bible, though we disagree some about what that means.

As for the rest, there is a consistancy of many values among widely divergent beliefs and societies. Anthropologists who study these things often assert that values arise from practicalities, sometimes very complicated practicalities. Not all values or morals spring from biologic facts or truths, but many do.

I am merely saying that even without God or god, morals exist.

I do not care who you are or what moral standard you espouse, you are intolerant of others treating you with malevolence, or hatred. And you approve when others treat you with benevolence, or love. Even a liar knows it is wrong to lie - lie to him and see how he likes it. Even an adulterer knows it is wrong to commit adultery - have his wife commit adultery against him and see if he approves. Even a thief knows it is wrong to steal - let him find his goods stolen and see how he responds.

http://www.rightremedy.org/booklets/50

Are some things always wrong? Is it always wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery?
What if you were on the receiving end or any of these? If morality is relative and we both agree, I could justify why I could steal, kill, or lie to you and you could not say anything because everything is relative.

No.

Just because there is some relativity doesn't open the door to anything.
I set rules for my 3 year old that are significantly different than those I set for my 9 year old. They are relative. Yet, in a broader sense, they are consistant in that my 9 year old experienced similar rules when he was 3.

YET... their personalities are quite different, so , in truth I have very different rules now, then and will in the future.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step Five: The Nature of Laws a
1) Are these laws Immaterial (not made of matter. Non-physical, abstract)
2) Are these laws material (made of matter/energy. Depended on physical stuff)

These is no other option.

yes, there are many options. One is found in quantum physics. Things that are true at the macro level are absolutely false at the sub-atomic level.

Step Five: The Nature of Laws b
1) Are these laws universal (apply to all and everywhere in the universe)
2) Are these laws Individual (vary from place to place and person to person)

These is no other option.


Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
1) Are they unchanging? (never change)
2) Are they changing (can and do change from day to day)

These is no other option.

You are just wrong. In most cases we don't even understand nature well enough to have true, infallible "laws" as you claim. I mean, you could probably say "all things die" is a "law", except... what of clones, what of single cell organisms that split, what of ... (even setting aside the Christian issue of the soul, etc.)

Again, you confuse things that people lay out to explain what they see with something that is set out absolutely. Part of this is because so often, scientists do tend to talk as if they refer to real and true absolutes. Its gets a bit tiresome to say 'given our known universe, given that all the physical laws we have studied and tested to date hold true... etc ad nauseum".

I am just using the 3 laws of logic to go through Step 5a,b,and c.

5A. These laws are either immaterial or material. Either or. One or the other.
So are any of these laws made of matter? Are they material? Can we destroy them or remove them from our reality by eliminating some sort of energy or material?

Again, I don't mean to be insulting, but you are talking about things you know nothing about.

Now is what I posted here wrong or what am I missing?
Have I excluded an option in any of these 5 steps? if so please post.

You miss any option that is outside your normal perceptions of the universe. You believe what you have been taught. and have not been taught to question your beliefs much at all.

I absolutely believe in God, but I will never say I can prove God exists, because I cannot. The proof comes largely from within and is not accessible to someone who does not wish to understand.

[MeDeFe]

Widowmakers, I'm a bit disappointed with you for ignoring my post while replying to the others. I'd been looking forward to a good discussion. In case you missed it, here's a link.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&start=4950#p2601517

[BigBallinStalin]

I conclude that something else, beyond what we can measure, see, touch, and test exists.
I conclude that is is God. How do you respond to this?

Right, you just said those things do not inherently exist, but suddenly you jumped to the conclusion that God must exist because of that.

Where's the logic in that "leap of faith"?

What I said was these things exist to us. We use them, we apply them, we depend on them every day as we make decisions and play and work, etc.

-If we can see that these things are not material (made of matter, energy)
-If we show they are not dependent of humans to exist
-If we show that they are unchanging (same yesterday and 500 years from now)

Then there must be something outside of our physical realm because these
things don't exist here (in our space time) but they are real and exist somewhere.

I am just stating that I feel that God exists outside Space and Time.
God (and for this discussion whatever deity you wish) is who sets absolute morality, mathematics, logic, scientific laws and is eternal, unchanging

You've certainly leaped pretty far on that one. What you've done is this: "I can't explain this, so it must be God."

Haven't we seen similar lines of thought in the past? I can't explain this, therefore it must be God--or God's doing. Then eventually someone strolls up, raises his hand, and says, "Actually, it's due to this." People gather around, nod their heads in agreement, and then we move on from the "must be God" hypothesis.

But remember, whatever keeps you solidly grounded into your beliefs, then that's fine. Just don't pass it off as something other than faith please.

[john9blue]

No, of course not, but Proof is not needed for a belief to be illogical either.

In this case however, there is no logical reason for believing, and there are far more reasons to back up it being illogical than it being logical. In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

Many were killed to continue the teaching of this belief, which is the only reason it exists in the form that it does today, and even today, it exists with so many variations many of which are so contradictory, that the more logical explanation is that man has simply carried this belief through ages of generations, and typically breaking the rules of said believes, to continue them along the way.

It was logical to believe the earth was flat.
It was logical to believe the earth was the center of the universe.
It was logical to believe the sun was the center of the universe.
It was logical to believe the earth could have been created only six thousand years ago.
It was logical to believe that zeus lived in the heavens and that atlas was holding up the world.

Now however, it is illogical to believe any of these, because they have been proven to be untrue.

What are these reasons to back up the belief being illogical? And don't say "lack of evidence" because atheists have no evidence either.

If people only believe in God because others told them to... why are there so many religions and so many believers? You think there is some sort of illogical impulse deep within humans? Or do you think we are trying to make logical order of our universe?

[WidowMakers]

Widowmakers, I'm a bit disappointed with you for ignoring my post while replying to the others. I'd been looking forward to a good discussion. In case you missed it, here's a link.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&start=4950#p2601517

Sorry. Did not mean to pass your response up.
I will try to get to yours first and the several others tomorrow but my daughter is turning 4 and my family is coming in for the weekend. Will most likely not have much time to post until Monday.

But I will.

[PLAYER57832]

In this case however, there is no logical reason for believing, and there are far more reasons to back up it being illogical than it being logical. In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

You are wrong here. There is reason, there is logic to why people believe in God and its much more than simply "someone told me". Yes, most of what people believe starts with what they were told. However, at some point, you have to think for yourself and find your own reasons. Or, you don't believe.

[jay_a2j]

In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.


Why?



Because I know He exists!

[WidowMakers]

In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.

Why?

Because I know He exists!

Agreed. Whether something is true is not dictated on how many people believe or don't believe it.

[joecoolfrog]

In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.


Why?



Because I know He exists![/quote }

And thats logical in your mind is it no really

[joecoolfrog]

In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.

Why?

Because I know He exists!

Agreed. Whether something is true is not dictated on how many people believe or don't believe it.

Sure but belief is hugely influenced by what those around you say and think, geography not truth tends to shape faith. If you or Jay were born in the Middle East , had Muslim parents . Muslim friends and went to a Muslim school then almost certainly you would now be supporting Islam .

[PLAYER57832]

In the end, the only reason people think its logical to believe there is a God, is because others told them there is a God. Its the only reason, and the only reason for the belief.

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.


Why?



Because I know He exists![/quote }

And thats logical in your mind is it no really

No, that is not logic, just a statement.

Logic is that we have seen evidence of God. It is not evidence that can necessarily be trotted out and shown to others. Sometimes it is "public", but often it is very personal. Here is the thing. Those arguing against logic often say "well, we can find a scientific explanation, so .. no God". BUT, God created all around us. Science is the study of all around us, so there is no conflict between science and religion. There can be dispute, but ultimately, there will always be resolution. Science looks at truth through what is seen, touched, heard, observed, tested. Religion gets at truth through feelings, analysis, observation and, yes, belief. Science claims to know little, because it demans absolute proof. Religion goes beyond that. However, it goes beyond with logic.

Science begins with a question, an investigation, a thought that is then tested. It does not enter the realm of fact unless and until it can be proven, but we all know that absolute proof is often very limited. Things that we all pretty well "know" to be true cannot be proven. Science cannot prove that fossils show a clear line of descent, not because the fossils are absent, but because "proof" in science is such an EXTREMELY tight requirement. It would basically take a time machine going back to proof irrefutable proof. Not quite, but close. So, some who decide not to study science can and do use that "against" science". Of course, as has been brought out in every single thread on the subject, not having absolute indisuputable proof does not mean "no proof". Further, it is a long way from saying "there is a lot of evidence for this idea, but is cannot be absolutely proven" and saying "This is just a theory, there is NO proof".. .and further yet to say "well, that means this other theory must be considered possibly true, since, after all that other theory is not absolutely proven."

Well, guess what. Evolution is not 100% utterly and completely proven, but there is a LOT of evidence supporting it. So, too with God. There IS a lot of evidence for God. Whether science can explain or not is utterly irrelevant. Further, there is much that science cannot explain. Science can explain enough for more and more people to say "hey, we don't need God". OK, fine. (of course, "not fine" from a religious perspective, but that's an entirely different debate). BUT, there is NOT anywhere near enough evidence to prove that God does not exist.

Unlike Evolution, however, this is not a case of one theory with loads of evidence and another with basically nothing but belief and fabricated evidence (sorry widow, etc, but that IS the truth, nothing put forward by Creationists as disputing evolution is actually verified fact .. it is all either acknowledged by evolution, irrelevant or utterly misstated. Some is pure fraud). Creationism is not just "another theory", it has been proven utterly false, with the sole exception that God could have done it that way but created life on Earth to appear as if it were created through evolution. There IS proof for God. There is proof of God that cannot be disputed by science. It cannot be confirmed by science, but it cannot be disputed.

Several of you have put forward arguments that basically say, well, if there is no evidence, then why?... you ignore statementst that there IS evidence. This is not science. We are not subject to the rigors that require absolute testing and proof. This is religion. It IS a matter of belief. But, that is true on BOTH sides. You wish to assert that your belief is based on evidence and valid, whereas ours is not. You can only assert this, though by ignoring the statements of many, many, many millions who say there IS evidence. If this were a science question, you would be like the ones who ignore evidence for Evolution or a round Earth because you don't wish to accept evidence contrary to your belief. Note, the reverse does not apply for those of us who are both scientists (accepting of science) and Christians. As I said before, finding proof is not proof against God, because God created all that we see and observe. God created the processes.

Ultimately, there is no real and true proveable answer for EITHER position. You cannot prove that there is no God. We cannot prove that there IS God to those who wish not to believe. All EACH position has is evidence that we each choose to see in different ways.

This is common in science. It is often true that there is no one, set explanation .. initially. As AA wrote, initially it made sense to some to think the Earth was flat.. and it made sense to others to think the Earth was round. Each side was sure they were correct, based on what they knew. Then they went out and, in time, absolutely proved that the Earth is round. (sorry, flat earthers, it is).

With God, there is not yet any such absolute proof. The question is open, from a scientific standpoint. The proof is in that more ephemeral region of belief and faith. BUT, and this is the point you choose to deny, but which is absolutely true.. it is faith no matter if you wish to accept God or not.

Those who deny God have faith that everything happens "just because". (the processes dictate the processes, dictate the processes... etc.). Those who accept God, for the most part accept that (yes, set aside the group of young earthers, they don't) BUT, we also say there is something else. It is no more logical or less logical than saying "just because". You like to say we call "magic" and you call "logic", but in truth it is ALL "magic". How else can we percieve the whole plethora of being as coming from absolutely nothing? How can we even percieve of true "nothing"?

For both realm, both religious and scientific, the best answer, right now, seems to be something along the lines of all time, etc being concurrant. BUT, we are just in the infancy of that type of thinking and investigation. It is all pure theory, pure thought. It is the stuff of beer-laden philisophical discussions and, occasionally serious university debates among those who wish to discuss "the other". It is not, however, real and true science, except at the very barest edges.


Any attempt to argue otherwise, to argue EITHER that God firmly can be proven OR to assert that God can be disproven is just arrogance and blindness. It is the result of an inability to look outside one's own personal belief. This kind of narrowness of thinking is sometimes "required" or demanded by churches of faith. Some scientists wish to assert that it is demanded of them. I urge you to reconsider. I urge you to reconsider because that is exactly what is leading folks like Widowmaker to deny science. And, frankly, science has been far too arrogant for far to long. It is up to YOU to prove your position and you have not done so. You can, IF you stick to that which is proven and take great pains to eliminate all which cannot be proven.. that is, to leave that in the realm of discussion/debate, but completely separate from the realm of proof. IF you choose not to do that, if you choose to stick with this idea that science=no God... you will lose, you will lose not only folks like widow, a number that is growing hugely, but you will lose folks who are like I, but who just lack the science background i have.

[AAFitz]

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.


Why?



Because I know He exists!

Now, yes. As you say, the debate is over and you have stopped learning and thinking. You have believed what you were told when you were young, and refuse to accept other possibilities. There is actually a psychological name for the phenomena where people will do the same things over and over even if they are wrong, and even know they are wrong only to protect their perception of reality, which some fear they not handle any change in. In the end, many realize they were wrong, but it is the fear of the change that prevents them from questioning their belief. To some degree, all people do it on some level. Some just take it to extremes and ignore anything they don't believe in at the time, and some simply hold onto everything they were told when young, and usually, because they came to believe so strongly in what they were told, and made it such a part of their personality, that the idea of questioning it, would question their entire life, and many simply cannot take that chance.

However, had you been told very early that your God was different, and everyone around you believed the same, you would now believe that, and you would never listen to anyone who ever told you different. You simply hold onto childhood beliefs very strongly and never question them no matter what, and no matter how much evidence to the contrary. Many people are like that. It is a much easier way to live. Believing in something and never accepting that it may be incorrect no matter what means you never have to question it, and you therefore never have to defend it. You can say you believe, no matter what as you just did, and you never have to accept that you were wrong. Ever.

The only problem with that is that it is not real belief, because you simply ignore any possibility that you are wrong, and since many people in the past and even currently have proven that they can believe things that turn out to be wrong, there is an insurmountable amount of evidence that shows that it is very probable that these beliefs are just psychological symptoms of the human condition, and not in any way evidence of an actual creator. As always, its impossible to prove there is no creator, but it is certainly possible to prove that people have, and very well could be just believing in irrational things that are not true, because there are countless examples and proof of it.

[PLAYER57832]

With all respect, Fitz, BOTH sides can be very blind.

[comic boy]

A gut feeling is not evidence , desire or faith is not evidence, there is no evidence for any God.

[Lionz]

Is there not love that is? What about survival of the fittest would explain someone from the States trying to send an anonymous monetary donation to strangers in Africa? Has that not occured?

Is there not something called Bode's Law that is? Is there not a distance relationship between bodies in the solar system that suggests planets were placed in a certain way by Someone intelligent?

Is there not a lack of observed abiogenesis that is? Should we assume spontaneous generation has occured?

Is there not fulfilled prophecy that is? Did Daniel not prophetically predict rising and falling of a number of empires and is there not prophecy concerning Yahushua (sp?) that's older than Mary and that has to do with Name and family line and place of birth and places of growing up and being betrayed for a certain amount of money and being betrayed by a friend and being abandoned by friends and way of death and timing of death and having garments parted and being offered vinegar and sky being darkened during day and being resurrected and timing between death and resurrection and more?

Is there not symbiosis that is? Are there not sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures that show underlying intelligent design and forethought at work? Does fungi not provide vital protection and moisture to algae and does algae not nourish fungi with photosynthetic nutrients? And what does pollination not help keep alive? Is there a plant that carries on with the help of pollination which existed years before pollinating insects?

Are there not personal testimonies concerning individuals claiming to have seen and heard spirits that is?

Are there not eyeballs that are? What are the odds that light sensitive photon recepting forerunning pigments happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from?

Are there not secret societies in direct opposition to Him that ironically are? What do you know about freemasonry? It's quite related to goat images and upside down stars in pentagons and one or more degree system and also called the Craft perhaps. What does it not have in common with witchcraft and how many US presidents and supreme court justices and astronauts have there been who have not been masons? Seen an upside down star like image in streets north of the whitehouse pointing at the whitehouse or a giant obelisk south of the whitehouse? Know what the so called statue of liberty truly represents? Seen novus ordo seclorum on the back of one dollar bills? I might not be a fan of Notre Dame or the Vatican, but is this not a link to a Notre Dame site with a Latin translator that has that translated?

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin ... o+seclorum

Seclorum = world/universe; secular/temporal/earthly/worldly affairs/cares/temptation;? Can you not even get images that point to M and A and S and O and N by placing masonic square and compass images over dollar bill pyramids and turning one dollar bill pyramids into six pointed stars?

Is there not evidence for mass demonic possession having occured that ironically is?

Are there not sexual organs that are? Would RNA transcription errors at individual levels explain penises and vaginas? Maybe it seems as though they were made for eachother or at least one for the other. Was there a first of each that happened to come about at about same moment in time and they happened to meet up? Would that not be evidence for a Creator? Did more than one of each come to be at about the same moment in time and two or more of them met up after that? Would that not be even more evidence for a Creator? Were there individuals with male organs and female organs who later evolved offspring with only one or the other? What suggests that's the case and what led to offspring with only one or the other if so?

Are there not followers of Yahushua (sp?) who saw Him after dying and who were later martyred that are? Were there followers of Him who had mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected who were later being martyred because of their faith?

And are there not laws of thermodynamics that are? If entropy decreased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy, then what happened? And do you claim that particles evolved into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and that inorganic compounds evolved into living materials and that living materials evolved into more and more complex plants and animals and finally into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution and claim that all of that occured without there being an increase in order and decrease in entropy in the Universe?

[jonesthecurl]

don't copypasta your own ramblings, lionzzzzzz.

[jonesthecurl]

...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[jay_a2j]

If every single person on earth told me that there was no God, I'd be the only one blessed with knowing that there is. It wouldn't change my beliefs one iota.


Why?



Because I know He exists!

Now, yes. As you say, the debate is over and you have stopped learning and thinking. You have believed what you were told when you were young, and refuse to accept other possibilities. There is actually a psychological name for the phenomena where people will do the same things over and over even if they are wrong, and even know they are wrong only to protect their perception of reality, which some fear they not handle any change in. In the end, many realize they were wrong, but it is the fear of the change that prevents them from questioning their belief. To some degree, all people do it on some level. Some just take it to extremes and ignore anything they don't believe in at the time, and some simply hold onto everything they were told when young, and usually, because they came to believe so strongly in what they were told, and made it such a part of their personality, that the idea of questioning it, would question their entire life, and many simply cannot take that chance.

However, had you been told very early that your God was different, and everyone around you believed the same, you would now believe that, and you would never listen to anyone who ever told you different. You simply hold onto childhood beliefs very strongly and never question them no matter what, and no matter how much evidence to the contrary. Many people are like that. It is a much easier way to live. Believing in something and never accepting that it may be incorrect no matter what means you never have to question it, and you therefore never have to defend it. You can say you believe, no matter what as you just did, and you never have to accept that you were wrong. Ever.

The only problem with that is that it is not real belief, because you simply ignore any possibility that you are wrong, and since many people in the past and even currently have proven that they can believe things that turn out to be wrong, there is an insurmountable amount of evidence that shows that it is very probable that these beliefs are just psychological symptoms of the human condition, and not in any way evidence of an actual creator. As always, its impossible to prove there is no creator, but it is certainly possible to prove that people have, and very well could be just believing in irrational things that are not true, because there are countless examples and proof of it.

I can see where you would believe that a person who is told long enough that X god is real, would believe it. As all faiths can attest to. However, there is a difference, one that can not be explained. It starts by simple faith....as this faith grows you will come to a place where Hebrews 11:1 sets in. It is Gods hand in my life, that can not be mistaken for coincidence, that validates my faith. There is a relationship between the believer and his/her God. It is not simply a belief but a personal relationship with the living God! And as I have walked this walk, God has made himself known to me. To the point where it is no longer a question of believing in Him, but knowing Him. No one can give this relationship to another but must be sought out individually.