I found this interesting.

[metalchris25]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

As far as I've always heard, God is besides omniscient also omnipotent, which means he can do anything, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't get it, God did create us in his image, didn't he. So if he cannot do anything against his nature, why can we do things against his/our nature. Or did he create us with a different nature? Why did he create us as sinners than? Isn't it against his nature to create something that can act against his nature?
It's the question of the chicken and the egg. You say that nothing can come from nothing, but in the same sentence you state that God was the origin and therefore always was and therefore does not need a cause. This is circular logic, if every effect needs a cause, so does God, unless he was created by God's God.
The problem with believing in God is, that God must be the answer to everything, but he isn't. While a non-believer can simply say, I do not know.

The Bible says that God does not destroy. Evil things are not of God. They are of the dark side.lol
So, if its all cause and effect, then what caused the big bang or whatever else it is you believe? What caused existence altogether? God doesn't have to be the answer to everything. 2+2 does not equal God. We all know its 5.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Same difference.
Question: God can do anything.
Answer: God cannot contradict himself.
Conclusion: God cannot do anything => God is not omnipotent => the God of the bible cannot exist.

Whoever said that God can do anything?!?

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Another proof that the God of the bible cannot exist, if I can do something he cannot. It also goes to the question of 'free will', apparently we have 'free will', but God himself hasn't.

God can freely do that which is within His nature.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Atheists have always stated that the burden of proof lies with those who make the positive assertation,

And that certainly does not make it so. The theist believes that God is so prevelant that His existence can be seen in everything, even your very ability to reason. Surely that would put the burden on you to prove how you can reason without God.


Cheers

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Where do you get the idea that God can do anything? God can't perform an evil act. That is something very simple which He can't do.
Sure He does. But He can't do anything contrary to His nature. That doesn't take away His will. You can't become invisible. Does that mean you aren't free?
Well at least you recognize that one can't disprove God. As for the burden of proof, I would say it is on you. For one thing, we need to have been created by someone, i.e. God. Seems like you have to come up with an alternative possibility (i.e. that something can come from nothing, thus disproving every rule of science we have and making your positions even more untenable), or else God wins.

Very good post, sorry I should have read it before I responded. I said basically the same thing.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

As far as I've always heard, God is besides omniscient also omnipotent, which means he can do anything, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Omnipotent does not mean the ability to do anything. If I were omnipotent, I could walk through walls, I could not, however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

I don't get it, God did create us in his image, didn't he. So if he cannot do anything against his nature, why can we do things against his/our nature. Or did he create us with a different nature? Why did he create us as sinners than? Isn't it against his nature to create something that can act against his nature?

Adam and Eve were not created as sinners. They were created with the ability to sin. There is a difference. Creating them with the ability to sin, is not against God's nature.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

It's the question of the chicken and the egg. You say that nothing can come from nothing, but in the same sentence you state that God was the origin and therefore always was and therefore does not need a cause. This is circular logic, if every effect needs a cause, so does God, unless he was created by God's God.

I realize that this is not my argument, but this is why I argue presuppositionaly rather than evidentially (in that case ontologically).Of course you would have to prove that God is an 'effect' to make your case, but you have a point.

The presuppositionalist says that God must exist for you to make sense even of causality. The preconditions of intelligibility require universal, abstract, invariant laws, which you cannot account for in your worldview. Feel free to try however.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

The problem with believing in God is, that God must be the answer to everything, but he isn't. While a non-believer can simply say, I do not know.

There are no true agnostics. If an agnostic were consisten with his belief, he would go to church half the time.

Thanks for your good points.

Cheers

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I realize that this was not addressed to me but if I may...

The Christian only assumes (read - presupposes) 2 things, that God exists, and that the Bible is His word. The rest are contained in His word.

fair enough that most or which is contained in the bible so the list shrinks to 3 off the op of my head but I am cetrtain there is more so here are the 3 as I see it

1. God Exists
2. We are the focus of his creation (yes I do realize that one could infer this from the bible out but based on the universe I still see this as an assumption)
3. The bible is 100% true and accurate

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

The atheist assumes MANY things.
1. Matter from non-matter
2. Sentient matter from non-sentient matter
3. Intelligent matter from non-intelligent matter
3. Moral matter from non-moral matter
4. Universal, abstract, invariant laws exist (from randomness)
5. Nature is uniform (in a 'random' universe)
6. Human reasoning is valid on its own.

1. nope who is to say that matter wasn't ust always here (per the solid state universe theory
2. The is abiogenesis and this is the one assuption
3. evolution is an obervable science so it is not an assumption
3 (agian). Please clairify what you mean by this
4. no gonna justify that with a response because we have already talked about that
5. its not it seems to take on uniformity because you only get a glymps of it in your short life span but it is chaos
6. it sure is any you have failed to demonstrait other wise as I have pointed out to you the flaws in your logical proccess and you continue to ignor and if you got you logic from the bible I guess god didn't spell it out well enough in the bible

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I certainly do not make such an assumption. I have God creating the universe. You have nothing creatign the universe. Hence, I am obeying the rules of science and you aren't.




I'll do that when we come to an agreement about god existing in the first place



Exactly. My answer to why we are here is God put us here. You don't really have an answer unless you have come up with somethign that millinos of atheists throughout history have failed to do.



Okay let's see....



No an assumption. Here is the syllogism:

We exist. An effect needs a cause. Hence, something had to cause us. This effect is called God.



That he created the world is easy to show. That He is involved in it is not an assumption, and though might not be scientifically proveable (but then, plenty of things you take for granted aren't either), it is reasonable to assume He would create us for a purpose.



Well, we seem to be getting way off-topic here, but this is not an assumption. Based on the evidence, many believe that Jesus was God. This is not an assumption, it is a deduction.



The Catholic Church does not say anything in the Bible is untrue. Indeed, the Catholic Church wrote and compiled the Bible's lsit of inspired books and holds it all to be the inspired word of God. However, the Church also admits the metaphorical speaking of Genesis which I believe you are refering to (the Church does not hold any young earth notions, etc.).


Well surely you understand this is not an assumption. This comes from many other things, i.e. Jesus, His apostles, the Church, etc.



Huh? I dont understand this one.




Seems fine to me. You haven't been able to show why god isn't necessary.

I love how you completly ignore the probablitity of abiogeseis this discussion is pointless if are not willing to do the leg work and either refute or call in to question what I bing to the table.... not like we haven't had this discussion before.but if you are unwilling to actually participate then we can stop.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Either they exist or they do not. People are free to choose what they believe.

Either or fallacy

you are ignoring the fact that there could be some other option.

if you need to know what fallacies are go here
http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Merely stating this does not make it so. You will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on your presupposition that the Bible is NOT the infallible word of God. The Christian will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on their presupposition that the Bible IS the word of God. Your point is moot. We have to examine the validity of our presuppositions to reach any conclusion.

here is a list of contradictions lets see is you can combat them
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I have given you proof. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You want to be CONVINCED that that proof is valid.

You have failed to give proof because your sight twists logic and there for it looses it wich is the opisite of what you have been trying to do with it.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

I have shown you the proof of God's existence. Rather than suggest that the argument supporting the validity of your human reason, without using human reason, is going to be 'Big,' just think about it first. You cannot do it. You may try if you like though.

You have failed to prove god or to prove that even if her existed how he is reposible for logic and reason. The link you provided offered nothing more than the suposed nature of god. Since you have already killed the christian model of god in discussion with Ralphy, there is no point at this time to address this because it has become moot as well, soon we will have nothing more to discuss because all points will have become moot. (lol)

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

For one, because Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logical foundation for universal, abstract, invariant laws. You may posit another. I will be pleased to refute it.

You miss the point... There is nothing about Jesus that is unique in his story... The retelling of myth (dying and rising god myth in this case) is an old practice. Lets see who else is there off the top of my head that pre-dates Jesus, that has a very similar or an identical story as him... Dyonisis, Mythras, Osiris, Apolonious. are a few that come to mind... Have you read up on them? have you studied their stories? Did you even know of their existance?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

You realize that this is a nice sentiment but a meaningless statement coming from an atheist. How can an abstract concept 'be with' anybody in your worldview?

Peace is not an abstract concept because it is observable. You really like ignoring reality when using your definitions of words don't you? if we can observe war then we can observe peace

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

You directed me to a forum where you called me a pretty low name. I have decided to answer some of your objections, but really after that, I certainly was not obliged to.

then by all means if I offended you then don't talk to me. you never were under any obligation to, name or no name. plain and simple I could drop this convertation right now becasue I don't owe you anything, much as you don't owe me anything.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

1. nope who is to say that matter wasn't ust always here (per the solid state universe theory

The impossibility of an actual infinite in time:
"Let's use an example of marbles". Imagine I had an infinite amount of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all the odd numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you would have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! Or another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would have only three marbles left.
What these illustrations demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results"
William Lane Craig, interviewed by Lee Strobel in The Case for a Creator, ch 5

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

evolution is an obervable science so it is not an assumption

Actually it is a religion based on faith as NO ONE has observed evolution.

The rest you have not addressed, and I don’t have the time to explain them again.

Cheers

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Actually it is a religion based on faith as NO ONE has observed evolution.

The rest you have not addressed, and I don’t have the time to explain them again.

Cheers

You know what.... if you are gonna fail to educate yourself on such matters as simple as evolution which is an observable science accepted as scientific fact even by christians and catholics then we are done here. My time is much to valuable to me than to waste it your cultish beliefs and twisted pitiful excuse for logic.


we are done here I refuse do to the leg work while you sit over there and dick around with your ignorace in science.


and no I am nto gonna justify the pathetic ramblings of apologist Lee Stroble with a response he does not have the respect of te theological community nor shall he have my respect you would have known this if you had done your home work and actually read privious threads on this board but alas you are only half heartedly going after any endevor regarding your website so it doesn't surprise me at all.

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

You know what.... if you are gonna fail to educate yourself on such matters as simple as evolution which is an observable science accepted as scientific fact even by christians and catholics then we are done here. My time is much to valuable to me than to waste it your cultish beliefs and twisted pitiful excuse for logic.

I'll save you some time. Just post one evolutionary fact that science has observed.

(By the way, if in fact you know anything about the evolutionary theory, you have gotten it from faith in a book, or in evolutionary scientists. I'll give you a 'small' list of scientists who disagree: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...os/default.asp )

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by metalchris25)

The Bible says that God does not destroy. Evil things are not of God. They are of the dark side.lol
So, if its all cause and effect, then what caused the big bang or whatever else it is you believe? What caused existence altogether? God doesn't have to be the answer to everything. 2+2 does not equal God. We all know its 5.

Well, I wasn't the one, who brought up cause and effect, your x-tian co-believers did, but we've already had a discussion on this before. The x-tian notion is, as far as I've gathered from earlier discussions, that everything needs a cause, god is that cause and he himself always was and therefore is the only thing that needs no cause (ofcourse I don't agree with that, but let's once again go with that). Now you brought up the notion of evil and I'll throw satan in the mix, if god is the cause and everything else needs a cause, either god created evil/satan or just like god he/it doesn't need a cause, which would make him equal to god. If evilness is just as eternal as god, why choose good above evil, it even strikes down the theory of absolute morality. Either evil is eternal or it came from God!

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Whoever said that God can do anything?!?

OK, so omnipotence is out of the window, in the dictionary it says omnipotence means having unlimited power, but we have assessed that god cannot contradict himself, therefore there are limits to his power.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

God can freely do that which is within His nature.

Once again there are limits to god noted, he can only do what is within his nature. So the omnipotent thing is definitely gone, but still he is a mighty powerful dude in your opinion. Why would an omniscient and omnipresent being create? Was god unhappy? Was god bored? If in the beginning there was only God and god was good, why create a possibility for evil to arise? Why, and god already knew what the outcome would be, create something where more than half of his children would burn for eternity? Is this goodness?

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

And that certainly does not make it so. The theist believes that God is so prevelant that His existence can be seen in everything, even your very ability to reason. Surely that would put the burden on you to prove how you can reason without God..

If he is so prevelant than we wouldn't be having this discussion, there would not be so many different religions with each again so many denominations and surely there would be no such thing as non-believers. There either is this prevelance or their isn't, the belief in prevelance does not relief you from the burden of proof, or you would have to proof the prevelance first, which given the arguements above is already disproven.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

There are no true agnostics. If an agnostic were consisten with his belief, he would go to church half the time.

Perhaps there are only agnostics, as we have all questions we do not know how to answer and we all throw our best guess at it, based on the information (we think) we have.

Why is a believer called just that, because he beliefs in god, he does not know god, at the very least not in his entirity.

And the notion that an agnostic would have to go to church half the time is really ridiculous. What church? If I have not enough knowledge to vote for one of the 30 political parties in my country, should I vote for a different one in the 30 next upcoming elections?

Agnostics cannot be consistent with their belief, because they have no belief, because they don't think they have enough knowledge to belief. The only consistent thing for an agnostic to do is gather more knowledge, perhaps even in a church or a mosque.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Canuckfish)

Thanks for your good points.

Cheers

Once again, you're welcome

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

OK, so omnipotence is out of the window, in the dictionary it says omnipotence means having unlimited power, but we have assessed that god cannot contradict himself, therefore there are limits to his power.

Show me a dictionary definition that says unlimited power means the ability to do anything. Self-contradiction is not a power, it is a weakness.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

If in the beginning there was only God and god was good, why create a possibility for evil to arise?

For a reason which is perfectly sufficient for Him

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

If he is so prevelant than we wouldn't be having this discussion... ...surely there would be no such thing as non-believers.

Now this is where we agree. There isn't any such thing.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

(Romans 1: 18 - 22)

[Canuckfish]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

Why is a believer called just that, because he beliefs in god, he does not know god, at the very least not in his entirity.

True, we could never know God in His entirety, but we can know what God has revealed about Himself in His Word.