There is no acceptable proof of God for atheists

philologos

Stephentlig wrote: »

1: he created the universe

2: the universe is a part of him, therefore it is he in his omnipotence.

3: with the above pointers in position God remains the first cause and unmoved mover. he was already a being, but he is within what he created.

Stephen, I hope you don't mind if I question your viewpoint further as a fellow Christian. I personally love the philosophy of religion but I find this reasoning a bit odd.

This is a question I commonly ask people who believe that the universe created itself, but since you believe God is the universe, and the universe created itself, I feel compelled to ask you the same question:

How can the Creator be the Creation at the same time?

In my view, God created the universe and all that is in it, God was external to the universe, but then His influence dwelled within it post-creation, if that makes sense.

I know this is a really trivial question, but I just want to really tackle this point because it's a subject that I really like

Are you basing this on the work of Aquinas or from your own thought?

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Morbert: Thomas Aquinas isn't foolproof and his argumentation is quite early on in the philosophy of religion, however theistic argument in that area of philosophy has been improving ever since people like Avicenna, Moses Maimonides, Aquinas, Anselm and numerous others began their arguments for Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Middle Ages. It's certainly not something to be merely snubbed at.

Other atheists have made very good counterclaims to most of the theistic arguments if one finds a textbook on the subject especially sceptics such as David Hume, but to merely dismiss them without giving them a seconds thought is the epitome of closed mindedness.

These arguments won't make or break a faith in God, but they give food for the mind, so that the heart can explore what God or what Christ has had to say.

As Stephen said, provide some points on the arguments instead of merely rubbishing them. E.G The infinite regress in cosmological arguments, the fact that a designer does not rule out the possibility of there being more than one designer among many of the points that David Hume brought to the table.

I have not dismissed them without a second thought, or merely rubbished them. And I have given points on such arguments, in this thread and in others What gave you that idea?

Stephentlig

In my view, God created the universe and all that is in it, God was external to the universe, but then His influence dwelled within it post-creation, if that makes sense.

I am in total agreement with what you have just said, so I feel that I am somehow being misinterpretated, allow me to demonstrate my thoughts more concretly.

I am not saying God is the universe in the sense of his divine presence.
but his omnipresence.
allow me to give an example such as the Eucharist, when we go to adore the Lord in the eucharist, it is him in his divine being, his ultimate presence, but when I pick up a spoon ( which he created ) I pick him up in his omnipresence.

Are you basing this on the work of Aquinas or from your own thought?

well St.Thomas explained about the unmoved mover, but I feel that yes this is my own thoughts on the subject, around what St.Thomas speaks about also. my thoughts can also be backed up through scripture.
in the OT we are told that he is within everything he created.
in the NT although I cant find it, one of the apostles talks about God being within everything.

so just to sum things up again
God is what he created ( the universe etc ) in his omnipresence, and the universe can not create itself but needs a knowledgable intelligent divine being to create it, for something that is unknowledgable cannot create itself, but needs something with intelligence to create it.

I hope what I said is clear enough, if not please do not hestitate to pester me some more haha and we shall grind it down until we get some answers.

God bless
Stephen.

philologos

This quote:

Bleargh. I respect coming to God through personal experience and whatnot, but philosophical arguments like those are worthless. In fact, most of the Christians I know would agree with me.

sounds like snubbing off the entire field of Philosophy of Religion.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

This quote:

sounds like snubbing off the entire field of Philosophy of Religion.

What about:

Morbert wrote:

I was waiting for an invitation to refute it . I'll be as concise as possible, but I can elaborate on any point.

Morbert wrote:

I have deliberately kept this short in the hope that you would like to present points in Aquinas's work that counter my points, to save me the trouble of writing a rambling essay.

Morbert (in another thread) wrote:

The short response: Cosmologists do not claim the universe came from nothing.

The tl;dr response:Cosmologists do not claim that energy, space and time came into existence at the Big Bang. Instead, our current cosmological models predict an expansion of space with the progression of time. In other words, the Big Bang is not a theory of creation, but rather a theory of moving outward. A consequence of this model is that, as we look to the past, we should see space, and everything in it, getting smaller - analogous to the way circles of latitude get smaller as we travel toward the north pole - until we get to what can be casually called the "beginning" of time, but at no point is there creation from nothing. Instead, time stops behaving like we expect it to behave, and acts like a north pole for our spacetime manifold.

So claiming that the universe must have a cause because time "begins" at the big bang is like claiming there must be something north of the arctic because lines of longitude "begin" there. The problem essentially lies with a misunderstanding of "beginning" and "cause".

On a more practical note, the assumption that everything must have a cause does not fit into the quantum mechanical regime, where systems can behave in an intrinsically stochastic manner. We know that this regime is essential when describing the big bang, even though we have not yet unified it with general relativity

Your link to Craig didn't work, but I am familiar with his formulation of the argument. As mentioned before, he seems to misunderstand the nature of the big bang, which has lead him to suppose that cosmologists claim the universe was created "ex nihilo".

I think it's safe to say that I did not merely rubbish philosophical arguments, or dismiss them without a second thought.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Wicknight, there is too much there to address in your post, especially knowing that it will never end with you. You will always say something in argument of the Christian idea of God, no matter what.

Well don't take it personally. I say something in the argument of most ideas of gods, not just the Christian one :pac:

Seriously though I'm not that interested in arguing with you. I'm merely pointing out to you the logic behind the atheist position so hopefully you will see that it is not that atheists are some how stubbornly refusing to believe your god exists and is what he claims to be against overwhelming evidence that it is all true, merely that we are not happy taking the leap of faith required to believe that is the case and also that there can, by definition, be no overwhelming evidence in support of the Christian god by definition of what the Christian god is define as.

That isn't the fault of the atheists, you are the ones who argue that beings with these properties (such as omnipotence) actually exist.

You can't really blame the atheists take that assertion to its logical conclusion.

chozometroid wrote: »

You are basically telling me I can't know anything, therefore it's foolish to believe in anything.

No I'm not. I'm telling you that you cannot know anything about a being that is considered to be supernatural and omnipotent, because by that very definition there is no requirement that it follows any rules or repeatable standards. It can be anything it wants to be, so how could you possible determine that it actually is.

Fields like science and other areas of human knowledge work under the assumption that the observable universe follows some order or standard. This may not actually be the case, but it appears to be the case. And at the end of the day science can only go on what it observes the world to be, it makes no assumptions about what it may be nor does it pretend to. So gravity appears to work the same way today as it worked yesterday. Atoms appear to behave the same way now as they did 15 minutes ago.

Things become much trickier if we imagine a being that can be anything it wants to be. How do you then determine, in any sensible fashion, what it actually is. By definition you cannot run any tests or make any sort of judgement about it because it may be entirely different 5 minutes from now than what it was 5 minutes ago.

If the universe ran like that science would be at a dead end. A hydrogen atom might have 1 electron today and 2 tomorrow. Gravity might decide today it is going to reverse and go the other way.

You can make no judgements about the true nature of a god because all you see is the fascade that it presents to you at that moment, and it can be anything it wants to be. Now this fascade may actually be its true nature, God may be exactly as he appears to be. But he may not. His true nature may be completely different. You can never determine that either way.

So I would not say it is foolish to believe in anything but I would certainly say it is foolish to believe you know the true nature of a supernatural being that can be anything it wants to be.

chozometroid wrote: »

I may as well go the easy way and be an atheist, huh?

Well I wouldn't go that far. If you believe that you have had experiences that lead you to conclude that a supernatural powerful being exists then by all means believe that such a being exists. But it is illogical to believe you can know anything about the true nature of this being.

You meet someone on the street and they start telling you things about some where far away where you have never been. You have certainly met someone, but can you determine if anything the person is saying is true? No, you can't. So at that moment all he is telling you falls directly into the "unconfirmed" sub set of your information. To move it into the confirmed subset you can try and test what he has told you. You go to the city he was talking about and you see yes there is a church in the square. Or you see a photo of it in a reputable guide book.

The thing with God though is that the information never moves out of the unconfirmed sub set because you, nor anyone else, can ever test it. You cannot test any of the information you have been told about God.

chozometroid wrote: »

Why should God lie? What possible reason would there be for a God to lie to His creation?

No idea, nor does it matter.

Why would a super powerful omnipotent being who exists outside of space and time send one group of middle eastern tribes men to massacre the women and children of another group of middle eastern tribes men?

If we are going to start playing the Why would God do that I can think of plenty of things that make a lot less sense than a God lying to his own creations that you guys are all happy to think must have valid reasons, even if you don't know or understand them.

The list of things I think don't think make any sense but which your religion happily believes in is very long and probably a topic for another thread, but the point is that Christians have never required a reason Why god did all the things he is supposed to have done in order to believe that he did them.

To demand a reason then why a god would do something like lie to his creations is nonsensical and illogical. Because he wanted to seems a valid as any of the reasons I've ever heard for things like the OT genocides.

chozometroid wrote: »

As far as God doing things for unknown reasons, there is no issue here. All that is saying is that we accept that we do not know everything, so we cannot possibly know how God is working things out. We actually do have an idea of why He is doing things, because He has revealed His plan to us.

Ok, Why does God lie to his creations. Because it is part of his plan. There, happy?

chozometroid wrote: »

A trickster god is man's invention.

And let me guess, your god isn't right?

chozometroid wrote: »

If there is one or more gods, and they are imperfect, where did the imperfection come from? Is there a greater god still? A desire to deceive and humiliate others is a sign of weakness.

I would consider a desire to be worshiped and believed in as a sign of weakness.

All you are doing is demonstrating my point, God ends up being what you find comforting and logical, as if that some how shapes reality. A trickster god is not comforting to you, it is chaotic and illogical. Therefore how can the "perfect" god be the trickster god. Well who said god had to be perfect or that perfect was what you think perfect is. Obviously you did, which is why you believe in the Christian God.

Me personally I think the Christian God is quite a bit short of what I would consider a perfect being. Possibly that is a reason why I never really believed that god was the Christian God, even when I still entertained ideas of gods.

chozometroid wrote: »

I'll ask Him when I see Him. If at that point, I was to act like you, I will not believe Him when He says how He did it. I would say He's lying or taking credit for the glorious work of the Big Bang. God cannot prove Himself to you, as you reject Him.

He can't prove himself to you either, which is why I said earlier that I find the idea of the Christian god to be far from the concept of a perfect, good, god that you guys claim he is.

If God does exist and is good and perfect he would know that he cannot demonstrate himself to us because we lack the ability to determine anything about him, and as such he would not expect us to believe in him as this would be unfair and asking us to do something illogical. Given that any perfect being would, based on my idea of perfection, be a perfectly logical, mathematical, being it would make little sense for him to think we should be illogical in how we relate to him.

A god that would expect, and even demand, that we believe in him despite the illogical nature of that belief, well that is not a god I would consider good or perfect.

So in a similar way that you cannot believe that a perfect being would be a trickster I certainly can't believe that the Christian god is a perfect being.

I think it is no more likely that if a perfect being exists he is the Christian god than you believe he is Loki.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

If God does exist and is good and perfect he would know that he cannot demonstrate himself to us because we lack the ability to determine anything about him, and as such he would not expect us to believe in him as this would be unfair and asking us to do something illogical. Given that any perfect being would, based on my idea of perfection, be a perfectly logical, mathematical, being it would make little sense for him to think we should be illogical in how we relate to him.

Science determines things about nature regardless of its inability to do so accurately. We determine things based on what we observe and the ideas form based on our perception of reality.

God can demonstrate Himself to us, and we can determine things about Him. To say that we cannot determine anything about Him because we cannot observe Him physically would mean we cannot determine anything about people's thoughts or emotions, or any abstract concepts whatsoever. We know these things are real, though, and we all do form ideas about them.
God demonstrates Himself to us through His creation, through the metaphysical nature of our minds, and through Jesus Christ/His Word, which details His interaction with mankind.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

We determine things based on what we observe and the ideas form based on our perception of reality.

The great so-called 'natural philosophers'* recognised that our perception of reality through our senses can be misleading. For this reason, we invented the must counter intuitive lack of common sense methodology that became science : it allows us to see things we otherwise could not.

God can demonstrate Himself to us, and we can determine things about Him. To say that we cannot determine anything about Him because we cannot observe Him physically would mean we cannot determine anything about people's thoughts or emotions, or any abstract concepts whatsoever. We know these things are real, though, and we all do form ideas about them.
God demonstrates Himself to us through His creation, through the metaphysical nature of our minds, and through Jesus Christ/His Word, which details His interaction with mankind.

There is one issue here, depending on where and what time in the world you were born, God would have demonstrated himself differently.
You may have noticed, that unlike His Excellenancy Wicknight, my posts tend to err on the lazy side:P

*Some ancient Greek dudes, cannot remember the names, (definitely couldn't pronounce them:)) all I remember is that one of them got sentenced to death for proposing that the Sun God was in fact a Ball of Rock on Fire.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Science determines things about nature regardless of its inability to do so accurately. We determine things based on what we observe and the ideas form based on our perception of reality.

Yes but it is very important to remember what you do and don't know, and more specifically what you can and can't know.

Observation is only one part of learning and discovery. It is necessary to test our assumptions about the world around us, because an awful lot of the time our initial view of something, the initial idea we form in our heads, turns out to be wrong.

The issue with God is that he is untestable, by definition. Any claims by him or anyone else about him are untestable. You can accept that they are true for what ever reason but you cannot determine they are true. You cannot even determine they are probably true.

chozometroid wrote: »

God can demonstrate Himself to us, and we can determine things about Him. To say that we cannot determine anything about Him because we cannot observe Him physically would mean we cannot determine anything about people's thoughts or emotions, or any abstract concepts whatsoever.

That is not what I claimed. It is not about physically observing him, if that is what you think you are missing the point.

Assuming he exists the only things we can determine about God is what he presents to us. If what he presents to us is not real, a lie, or not a reflection of his true nature, we wouldn't know because we have absolutely no way to test if what he is presenting to us is true.

That doesn't matter if you are observing him or not.

As I said earlier it would be like having a conversation with someone with out any ability to determine if what they are telling you is true or not. God would be in complete control of how we perceive him and if he wishes to deceive us he can do so without any trace of such a deception.

chozometroid wrote: »

God demonstrates Himself to us through His creation, through the metaphysical nature of our minds, and through Jesus Christ/His Word, which details His interaction with mankind.

All that is meaningless dogma, you are just repeating the party line.

The only thing God demonstrates through his creation is that he created something, and even that we cannot determine.

If God didn't create us but wanted to take credit for doing so he could, and you could never determine otherwise. You may ask why would he want to, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot tell if he is or not.

Detailing his interaction with mankind again only demonstrates that he interacted with man kind. Why he interacted with mankind is a different matter entirely. You can accept what you are told but you have no way to determine that. God works in mysterious ways.

If Jesus was supernatural but not what he claimed to be you couldn't tell. He could have done all the things Christianity claims he has done but for completely different reasons that the reasons he gave. The obvious example, claimed by some Jewish sects as far as a I know, is that he was the devil trying to trick people into believing in a man as God and cause worship of a fail idol.

How would you know? Claiming you could tell is nonsense. You couldn't tell. You can believe and accept but that is not the same thing at all.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but it is very important to remember what you do and don't know, and more specifically what you can and can't know.

Observation is only one part of learning and discovery. It is necessary to test our assumptions about the world around us, because an awful lot of the time our initial view of something, the initial idea we form in our heads, turns out to be wrong.

The issue with God is that he is untestable, by definition. Any claims by him or anyone else about him are untestable. You can accept that they are true for what ever reason but you cannot determine they are true. You cannot even determine they are probably true.



That is not what I claimed. It is not about physically observing him, if that is what you think you are missing the point.

Assuming he exists the only things we can determine about God is what he presents to us. If what he presents to us is not real, a lie, or not a reflection of his true nature, we wouldn't know because we have absolutely no way to test if what he is presenting to us is true.

That doesn't matter if you are observing him or not.

As I said earlier it would be like having a conversation with someone with out any ability to determine if what they are telling you is true or not. God would be in complete control of how we perceive him and if he wishes to deceive us he can do so without any trace of such a deception.



All that is meaningless dogma, you are just repeating the party line.

The only thing God demonstrates through his creation is that he created something, and even that we cannot determine.

If God didn't create us but wanted to take credit for doing so he could, and you could never determine otherwise. You may ask why would he want to, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot tell if he is or not.

Detailing his interaction with mankind again only demonstrates that he interacted with man kind. Why he interacted with mankind is a different matter entirely. You can accept what you are told but you have no way to determine that. God works in mysterious ways.

If Jesus was supernatural but not what he claimed to be you couldn't tell. He could have done all the things Christianity claims he has done but for completely different reasons that the reasons he gave. The obvious example, claimed by some Jewish sects as far as a I know, is that he was the devil trying to trick people into believing in a man as God and cause worship of a fail idol.

How would you know? Claiming you could tell is nonsense. You couldn't tell. You can believe and accept but that is not the same thing at all.

All of what you are saying is pointless speculation (and much of what I'm saying in response). It's easy to come up with "but what if" queries to someone's views all day long.

As for not believing in something someone says, well, that's based on trust/reputation, no? And the idea that God is revealing Himself falsely seems pointless if He is God. What would He have to gain/lose for doing/not doing so? The whole point in His creating things is to have them accept Him for what He is.

God's claims can be tested. What He said in the Bible has come to pass. Do you realize how many prophecies have been fulfilled? Does this mean nothing to the atheist?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

All of what you are saying is pointless speculation (and much of what I'm saying in response).

That doesn't really matter. I don't actually believe any of those things, I'm not trying to convince you that Jesus was actually the devil pretending to be the son of God.

My point is simply that you cannot tell either way. By virtue of how they are defined to start with you can't actually determine anything about any of these being you believe exist beyond what they (through your religion) tell you. Even if we both accept they are real and are actually telling you these things that is the limit to which you can know about them

This goes back to your original post where you seemed to suggest that atheists were being unreasonable in not accepting what you believe is true. My point is that it is not.

You are taking a large leap of faith, which is fair enough. By all means take that leap if it makes you happy. But it is certainly not unreasonable not to jump with you.

For example you can't actually present me compelling evidence or proof that Jesus was the son of god. That is simply a logical paradox since you would have to be a god yourself to do that.

At the very most you can present me proof that Jesus claimed to be the son of God and that he has supernatural powers. You can believe, again though a leap of faith, that because of this you accept he is who he claimed to be, but I would not be so eager to rush to that conclusion, even if you had Jesus in front of me raising people from the dead.

And I would imagine that if I did have Jesus in front of me he should understand this issue.

chozometroid wrote: »

It's easy to come up with "but what if" queries to someone's views all day long.

Yes, very easy. That is in fact the point.

chozometroid wrote: »

As for not believing in something someone says, well, that's based on trust/reputation, no? And the idea that God is revealing Himself falsely seems pointless if He is God.

Again that is a illogical position. The point may be completely unknown or unknowable to you. It is not a requirement that you know why a supernatural being would be lying to you in order for him to be actually lying to you, any more than you need to know why a human is lying to you in order for him to be able to. And in fact the less you know why the better the lie is.

chozometroid wrote: »

What would He have to gain/lose for doing/not doing so? The whole point in His creating things is to have them accept Him for what He is.

The whole point according to who or what? The Bible?

chozometroid wrote: »

God's claims can be tested. What He said in the Bible has come to pass. Do you realize how many prophecies have been fulfilled? Does this mean nothing to the atheist?

Well leaving aside that it has never actually been demonstrated that any of these prophecies have actually been fulfilled (you simply accept what you are told by your religion), that is not a test of God's claims.

And evil god with omnipotent powers can see the future and make prophecy just as well as a good god with omnipotent powers. That is the whole point, a god with omnipotent powers can do what ever he wants. He can make prophecies. He can raise the dead. He can create worlds. He can do this if he is good and benevolent and he can do this if he is evil and wicked simply trying to convince us that he is good and benevolent.

What you can't do is determine this, determine if the reason he is doing these thing is the reason he has stated he is doing these things.

Húrin

chozometroid wrote: »

What is comes down to is this: Atheists just don't like God, or the idea of the Christian God, so it doesn't matter to them if He is real or not. He is not worthy of worship to them. Atheists are their own gods, and as such, are on their own in the grand scheme of things.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that saying "Atheists are their own gods" is needlessly provocative, but with most of the atheists in the other forum, if you ask them, they think God is a prick anyway. This pretty well gives the game away for them since what came first? The dislike of God, or the disbelief?

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it would be nice not to be annihilated, but principles have to come first in some instances.

Most humans put their survival over their principles. Why would I think you are any different?

Wicknight wrote: »

God expects us to believe in him but ignores all these issues this thread highlights about how the heck we are supposed to determine anything about him?

If a god exists and is good he wouldn't, by virtue of being good, expect that. To be good he would have to have far more respect for logic and the limitations of human knowledge. Otherwise, in my book, he is far from good.

You think that Christians can't determine who God is but you think that you can determine what good is? What if you're wrong as they are?

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

This quote:

sounds like snubbing off the entire field of Philosophy of Religion.

I've seen worse, such as snubbing all fields of human enquiry and endeavour that are not science.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I think that saying "Atheists are their own gods" is needlessly provocative, but with most of the atheists in the other forum, if you ask them, they think God is a prick anyway. This pretty well gives the game away for them since what came first? The dislike of God, or the disbelief?

I would imagine that in most cases it was the dislike of God.

If you remove the desire to believe that something like God exists you remove a lot of the incentive to accept that it is true. Very few humans believe in wicked monotheistic gods. I think that is telling.

We cling to belief in God because it serves a purpose. Remove that purpose and you often let go of the idea entirely.

Húrin wrote: »

Most humans put their survival over their principles. Why would I think you are any different?

Perhaps I'm not. I would like to think I am. But perhaps if a god threatened me with eternal torture in a lake of fire I would rush to my knees and start kissing his supernatural boots.

Húrin wrote: »

You think that Christians can't determine who God is but you think that you can determine what good is? What if you're wrong as they are?

Well "good" is my own opinion, so yes I do. I can't really be "wrong" as it is just my own judgement. You can think, in your opinion, that I'm wrong by all means.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

I've seen worse, such as snubbing all fields of human enquiry and endeavour that are not science.

Groan ... not this again.

I seem to remember asking you to explain how "fields of human enquiry and endeavour that are not science" had managed to over come all the problems with human learning that science attempts to manage and getting no response.

It is all very well to claim that there are fields that are as good if not better than science at discovering truth about reality, but so far you have never put forward any examples or evidence of this.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

My point is simply that you cannot tell either way. By virtue of how they are defined to start with you can't actually determine anything about any of these being you believe exist beyond what they (through your religion) tell you. Even if we both accept they are real and are actually telling you these things that is the limit to which you can know about them.

So why believe anything then? You say it's impossible for us or even God to prove Himself. Isn't that eliminating a possible truth?

I could say you can't determine anything about the world beyond what it tells us. How can we trust that the world is giving us the right information? Maybe what it reveals is much different than the truth. Who says we are testing it the right way, or that we are viewing the results of these tests through the right lens (How can our eyes be trusted? Or our brains? Maybe our minds are evil and just having their way with us.)

At the very most you can present me proof that Jesus claimed to be the son of God and that he has supernatural powers. You can believe, again though a leap of faith, that because of this you accept he is who he claimed to be, but I would not be so eager to rush to that conclusion, even if you had Jesus in front of me raising people from the dead.

Exactly as I thought.

It is not a requirement that you know why a supernatural being would be lying to you in order for him to be actually lying to you, any more than you need to know why a human is lying to you in order for him to be able to. And in fact the less you know why the better the lie is.

Saying God is a liar would be attributing Him with a "creaturely" quality. At some point we have to presuppose a basic premise. If I proposed a God who is boundless energy, a mind consisting of pure love and truth, and the possibility for this God is allowed, then it follows that He is not capable of lying. It's not an inability more than it is an impossibility. It would be a contradiction of His character. He speaks what is. It's not just comforting for me to believe in this type of God. It just so happens to be the One True God.

Well leaving aside that it has never actually been demonstrated that any of these prophecies have actually been fulfilled (you simply accept what you are told by your religion), that is not a test of God's claims.

I simply accept what I'm told by my religion? Wow.
Do you know of them? Would you like me to list them? Which ones do you believe to be just "what my religion tells me?" These are historic facts.
The book of Daniel predicts the rise and fall of 4 great nations. History was not interpreted just to fit what the Bible says. It's plain as day.
God gave Daniel the interpretation of the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar as follows:

"This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king."

"Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold."

"And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth."

"And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise."

"And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Daniel 2:36-45 KJV)

The Babylonian empire was the "head of gold."
After it came the Persian empire. The Persians conquered Babylon in 536 B.C. They are the "chest and arms of silver."
The Persian empire was conquered by the Greeks under Alexander the Great. The Greeks became the "belly and thighs of bronze."
Then came the Romans, the "legs of iron."
The feet that are iron mixed with clay represent the divided Roman empire we see in Europe.

It is all in chronological order, with each part of the statue corresponding perfectly to the respective nation. The gold, silver, brass, and iron are all characteristic of their represented nation. This prophecy was given around 600 BC.

And evil god with omnipotent powers can see the future and make prophecy just as well as a good god with omnipotent powers. That is the whole point, a god with omnipotent powers can do what ever he wants. He can make prophecies. He can raise the dead. He can create worlds. He can do this if he is good and benevolent and he can do this if he is evil and wicked simply trying to convince us that he is good and benevolent.

The fact that it's possible God could be evil really amounts to nothing as far as the reality of God's existence or what Christians believe.

You are an interesting fellow.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

So why believe anything then? You say it's impossible for us or even God to prove Himself. Isn't that eliminating a possible truth?

No, it is recognising what we can and can't know. Again if you want to take the leap of faith and believe what God has told you is true go ahead. But you can't demonstrate that so don't be surprised if others don't.

chozometroid wrote: »

I could say you can't determine anything about the world beyond what it tells us. How can we trust that the world is giving us the right information?

We can't. But for most purposes it doesn't matter. Things fall down. A hydrogen atom has 1 electron. Electricity flows between magnets. If all this is actually an illusion by the universe (which it may well be), it doesn't really matter because we can still use it for doing stuff. Things still operate based on rules, even if the rules are actually illusions.

It is possible, and some recent scientific findings seem to give support to this, that our 3D existence is actually an illusion, that we and the universe itself is a hologram on a 2D plan. That is quite mind expanding, the idea that what we see as the 3D world around us is actually illusionary.

Other work is suggesting that time works both ways and the only reason we view the time in one direction is due to a quantum forgetfulness that means the universe forgets things that flow backwards in time but remembers things that flow forward. This would mean our perception that we are moving forward in time is an illusion.

But we can still operate perfectly fine if all these things turn out to be true. There is a huge area of the philosophy of science and knowledge that thinks about these things and in order for us to realise what we can and can't know.

chozometroid wrote: »

Exactly as I thought.

I would hope so since it is my central point.

chozometroid wrote: »

Saying God is a liar would be attributing Him with a "creaturely" quality.

I think your religion has already attributed plenty of "creaturely" qualities to him already, I don't know why you would object to this?

chozometroid wrote: »

At some point we have to presuppose a basic premise. If I proposed a God who is boundless energy, a mind consisting of pure love and truth, and the possibility for this God is allowed, then it follows that He is not capable of lying.

But that is a baseless first premise to start from. Why would God's mind have to consist of pure love and truth? Is that a requirement of a supernatural deity?

You are just defining the god you want to exist and going from there. Which is pointless, you have no idea what type of omnipotent beings can or cannot exist.

chozometroid wrote: »

It's not just comforting for me to believe in this type of God. It just so happens to be the One True God.

Wow, what a coincidence :P

chozometroid wrote: »

I simply accept what I'm told by my religion? Wow.
Do you know of them? Would you like me to list them?

Yes by all means. Please list the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled that you have independently verified were actually fulfilled (ie you weren't just told they were by your religion)

chozometroid wrote: »

Which ones do you believe to be just "what my religion tells me?" These are historic facts.

I would be very interested in you listing the ones that you believe are "historic facts". Can you do so without sourcing the Bible? Or do you consider the Bible to be a unbiased historical document?

chozometroid wrote: »

It is all in chronological order, with each part of the statue corresponding perfectly to the respective nation. The gold, silver, brass, and iron are all characteristic of their represented nation. This prophecy was given around 600 BC.

Leaving aside that the prophecy is so unspecific as to be worthless (well done Daniel in predicting that some time in the future someone was going to conquer someone else:rolleyes:) the book itself was actually written after 200 BC, 400 years after the claims of the original prophecies and after history had provided plenty of examples for conquering city states for the author to match up against the prophecy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Dating_and_content

A prophecy is worthless if it is a) unspecific in detail allowing it to be fitted to what ever the believe wants and b) our source of it only appears in records after it is supposed to have come true and c) the actual prophecy details are unverifiable.

Which covers all the Biblical prophecies we know about.

chozometroid wrote: »

The fact that it's possible God could be evil really amounts to nothing as far as the reality of God's existence or what Christians believe.

Of course not, an evil God won't be sending you to eternal paradise. What is the point in believing that God might be evil.

sold

If Gods existance was proved 100% then there would be no room for Faith.

Zombrex

sold wrote: »

If Gods existance was proved 100% then there would be no room for Faith.

Is that a bad thing?

Anyways, God's existence can't be 100% proven so no need to worry.

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

Is that a bad thing?

Anyways, God's existence can't be 100% proven so no need to worry.

If God where to give us too much evidence he would compel us against our own free will.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

If God where to give us too much evidence he would compel us against our own free will.

Yes in the same way that theory of electricity has compelled me to believe, against my free will, that electricity is the movement of electrons across a conducting surface, rather than small elemental creatures with spikes

Damn you Benjamin Franklin!!!!

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes in the same way that theory of electricity has compelled me to believe, against my free will, that electricity is the movement of electrons across a conducting surface, rather than small elemental creatures with spikes

Damn you Benjamin Franklin!!!!

Yes, but the small elemental creatures with spikes AkA Pikachus created the first electrons.
Ben Franklin was merely the world's first Pokemon Master.

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes in the same way that theory of electricity has compelled me to believe, against my free will, that electricity is the movement of electrons across a conducting surface, rather than small elemental creatures with spikes

Damn you Benjamin Franklin!!!!

Yes but God transcends all knowledge, and our human explanations of how this or that occurs always fall short of his mystery. so my previous post remains a valid one.

take a rose for example, we can all try our best to describe the rose, hey, even Albert einstein, if he were still alive could describe the fragrance in math, but its never truly the fragrance, in order for us to know the fragrance we need to smell the rose, its the same with God, he surpasses our human knowledge, and the only way to him is through personal experience. our philosophical discussions upon him are only an indication a pointer, a sign. another example could be explained as a signpost to dublin, we look at the sign post, but just because the sign post says ''Dublin'', does not exactly mean we are in dublin, but it points the way to dublin.

so I think morbert is right, philosophical discussions are worthless, but only worthless to the man/woman who falls into the category who neither seek him nor find him, and for those who have sought him and found him.

but they are food for thought, and indicators for those who seek him, but I do honestly only beleive that those who seek him with an honest heart will find him. Charles de foucould who is on my blog page www.thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com was one of those atheist/agnostics, but he asked God to reveal himself, and wadda ya know, he became a priest and martyr of the church.

and if he were to give us too little evidence, then those who seek him wouldnt find him.
so he gives us just enough light to get there.

God bless
Stephen

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes but God transcends all knowledge, and our human explanations of how this or that occurs always fall short of his mystery. so my previous post remains a valid one.

Only because you defined God as being so.

take a rose for example, we can all try our best to describe the rose, hey, even Albert einstein, if he were still alive could describe the fragrance in math, but its never truly the fragrance, in order for us to know the fragrance we need to smell the rose, its the same with God, he surpasses our human knowledge, and the only way to him is through personal experience. our philosophical discussions upon him are only an indication a pointer, a sign. another example could be explained as a signpost to dublin, we look at the sign post, but just because the sign post says ''Dublin'', does not exactly mean we are in dublin, but it points the way to dublin.

I disagree with this analogy. Fragrance is only ONE of MANY things that defines the properties of a rose, and as not everyone's nose is the same Math would be an ideal way to classify the smell so that everyone could equally understand it.

Charles de foucould who is on my blog page www.thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com was one of those atheist/agnostics, but he asked God to reveal himself, and wadda ya know, he became a priest and martyr of the church.

People switch allegiances the whole time, Christians who actively seek Him become Non Christians, and Non Christians become Christians by accidentally finding Him : God works in funny ways, if indeed he is there to work :P

Stephentlig

Only because you defined God as being so.

Yes and thats the leap of faith we go for. when romeo goes to find out if Juliet loves him, he doesnt bring an army of lawyers and scientists, he simplys says that if you love me then you'll leap into my arms.

I disagree with this analogy. Fragrance is only ONE of MANY things that defines the properties of a rose, and as not everyone's nose is the same Math would be an ideal way to classify the smell so that everyone could equally understand it.

although it is one of many, mans description of it is never correct, one has to experience the fragrance to understand it, the math of a nose, isnt exactly the nose either, just mans poor description yet again. so the anology remains valid.

People switch allegiances the whole time, Christians who actively seek Him become Non Christians, and Non Christians become Christians by accidentally finding Him : God works in funny ways, if indeed he is there to work :P

well it can be said that of those who did seek him and became non christian, obviously gave up and lost endurance, yet later in life they might just start to seek again.

Turtwig

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes and thats the leap of faith we go for. when romeo goes to find out if Juliet loves him, he doesnt bring an army of lawyers and scientists, he simplys says that if you love me then you'll leap into my arms.

And all ended in tragedy....

although it is one of many, mans description of it is never correct, one has to experience the fragrance to understand it, the math of a nose, isnt exactly the nose either, just mans poor description yet again. so the anology remains valid.

No it doesn't. Humankinds senses are both limited and flawed, the equations of Math allow us to account for things that we cannot see,smell,touch,taste or hear but we know they are there. The fragrance of a rose may be described athesitically beautiful in a poem, but that doesn't tell us what a rose actually is - the 'beauty' is revealed through the Maths and Physics.:p

well it can be said that of those who did seek him and became non christian, obviously gave up and lost endurance, yet later in life they might just start to seek again.

Or they might not..

Stephentlig

No it doesn't. Humankinds senses are both limited and flawed, the equations of Math allow us to account for things that we cannot see,smell,touch,taste or hear but we know they are there. The fragrance of a rose may be described athesitically beautiful in a poem, but that doesn't tell us what a rose actually is - the 'beauty' is revealed through the Maths and Physics.:p

Yes but if our senses are limited and flawed, then the fragrance is perfect and we are imperfect, therefore the fragrance remains a Total mystery, however it could be said that each person according to their capacity expereince God ( the fragrance ) in different ways, but it does not change God ( the fragrance ) for he is perfect, we are imperfect, but experience him in different ways. another example is a person who draws a mathematical drawing of yesterday, its only numbers though, its not yesterday, its not an experience of yesterday.

although math and physics is an account of how things work, it isnt exactly how things work is it?

my head is starting to spin :eek:

pisslips

pisslips wrote: »

Since you have definied 'god' as some un-provable argument, then it is no argument at all. It's not even worth thinking about apart from the social phenomena of organised religion and the collection of moral philosophy we call the bible.

But the argument for a god is not defined, pointless. You defined it as incomprehendable therefore it doesn't exist because I can't percieve it.

Look, how is this a question even worth considering. I don't care how the properties of god are described there is only one property that matters and thats omnipotent, therefore existense does not apply to such a thing.

You make a good point about perception and what we as humans can contemplate and concieve about the universe, that we are false instruments of truth adn are all subjective even collectively and even with math or scientific proof. I think maybe some followers of science feel that through scientific proof we may converge to objective truth over a finite time. Or some , who do not treat it as a religion use it to improve the quality of human life and increase their own subjective understanding of how things work but do not attach higher meaning to it.
You are right wto suggest that we might as well not believe in anything. And it is equally as valid for you to believe that through faith you will discover truth as it is to think that through science on can discover truth.

I'll just point out that I am athiest because I choose not to believe in spirituality or that abstract concpets such as truth apply to me. i have no reason to believe that I am any more significant to "who knows, I have no terms of reference" than a cheetah or a fish , a rock or a photon is.

But we are something, self defined.

It depends what you mean by proof, on one level, for me there is no acceptable proof of the god you have defined and on another there is no acceptable proof for anything except, I am something, self defined.

Stephentlig

I am something, self defined.

but such a statement also requires a leap of faith, as you have no evidence to sustain your statement.

qoute me all the theorys you want but unless they have solid evidence behind them, they are nothing more than a mans wild fantasy.


you sound like you fall into the category of ''neither seeks him nor finds him.''

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

God demonstrates Himself to us through His creation

And Allah does this with muslims, as Brahma does with hindus, as Ahura Mazda does with Zoroastrians, and so on.

By your reasoning, Allah, Brahma, Ahura Mazda (etc, etc) must also exist as universal, omnipotent, forgiving deities.

Do you believe this? Or are all the other religions wrong about their experiences, while you alone are right about yours?