Fighting Two Fronts

[proffesb]

If God had come from somewhere or dwells anywhere, He wouldn't be God. I am not talking about the anthropomorphic god of religions but the real God, Creator of the universe, Who is always creating. Now, since you committed the fallacy to appeal to authority in the quotation of Han Solo, I thank you for giving me the same right to appeal to the Scriptures. "The universe declares the handiwork of God." That's in Psalm 19:1.

Yes, I agree with you that "I don't know" could be an honest answer, but when you are ready to acknowledge other possibilities, at least until you know for sure what you don't know yet. But to deny the possibility of a Creator for the universe, is pride and arrogance, when you don't know anything about its origin.

I think you have misunderstood what i was saying. From your post declaring what all atheists think it appears you have some unfounded prejudices against that school of Thought. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god doesn't exist it is a lack of belief that god does, you are confusing anti-theism with atheism. Here is a comparison using geometry; atheism is to anti-theism as a rectangle is to a square.

I never denied the possibility for a universe creator to exist, I denied the certainty.

The quote from han solo was meant to be light hearted and in good humor, just because something is from a work of fiction doesn't mean it is an invalid point, rather I think it is a good point that stands on it's own, Assuming you watched the movies you would know that Han Solo eventually saw things that made him believe in the force. I was actually trying to put out an olive branch.

The point you brought up about the universe declaring the handiwork of god does not stand on it's own it requires faith in the divinity of the book. There are many things in holy books that are good points, not because they are in the books but simply because they are good points.

 

[Vendetta]

Mr. Ben Masada

How do we know the universe is the handiwork of God and not multiple gods acting in unison?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You assume! I don't. I am sure you are the one illiterate or a fool to think that I don't know the difference between a statement "that there is no God" and another "that's possible that God exists."

Go back to your post #481 and see who of us declared the following statement: "I have no reason to conclude that God or gods exist, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A GOD OR GODS EXIST. "

And, apparently, you don't seem to be able to recognize the difference between saying "It is possible that a God or Gods exist" and "everything is possible".

Once again, Ben, your inability to actually comprehend (or, at least, remember) my statements is staggering.

Seriously, at this point, we have nothing else to say to each other any more. You either don't know anything about what you say, or you forget immediately what you have said. If a physical ailment is the case, I beg your pardon for being too rough in my response to your ad hominem above. But here we adjourn; I have been just wasting my time with you.

I think anybody with any degree of reading comprehension can read this thread for themselves and see that it was you who displayed no acknowledgement whatsoever of anything I wrote and babbled endlessly about a bunch of nonsense I never said. You never once got the point of anything I said, so I think it's probably a good idea to conclude our discussion since you clearly lack the ability to actually understand my argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consider what you are telling me in your last statement. "All that is necessary for atheism is to simply fail to be convinced." Necessary to fail to be convinced! Why atheists must fail to be convinced? And why by necessity? Is this a kind of competition which atheists must not lose?

It's not a competition; it's just a statement of fact: if an atheist is convinced of a theist claim, then he believes in a god (or gods), which would mean he's no longer an atheist.

And to be convinced, as far as I am oncerned, is an involuntary action that takes place in the mind and not in the will.

Bingo. You got one bit right.

You have made of any debate between Theists an Atheists a kind of contention which Atheists should, by no means allow themselves to be convinced, no matter what.

No, not really. Only if they absolutely don't want to be a theist, no matter what.

All I'm saying is that if you believe in any gods, you're a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist. And being convinced that a god (or gods) is real implies believing in that god(s).

Like Christians who, according to Luke 16:29-31, are not to listen to Moses even if the dead resurrect to tell them that's the only way to escape Hell. I never thought I would find among atheists this kind of faith. A faith that kills as a result of lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) That's the faith that took 960 of the faithful of Jim Jones down to the poinson of any possibility to be convinced about any other way.

Never mind. Looks like I made things worse: in an effort to point out that your use of language showed a misunderstanding of what the term "atheism" means, it seems I gave you more fodder for you to manufacture a whole new misunderstanding.

If you're not going to actually read what I write, then just forget what I said.

 

[Ben Masada]

It's not a competition; it's just a statement of fact: if an atheist is convinced of a theist claim, then he believes in a god (or gods), which would mean he's no longer an atheist.


Bingo. You got one bit right.


No, not really. Only if they absolutely don't want to be a theist, no matter what.

All I'm saying is that if you believe in any gods, you're a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist. And being convinced that a god (or gods) is real implies believing in that god(s).




Never mind. Looks like I made things worse: in an effort to point out that your use of language showed a misunderstanding of what the term "atheism" means, it seems I gave you more fodder for you to manufacture a whole new misunderstanding.

If you're not going to actually read what I write, then just forget what I said.

Penguin, the problem is that you have dressed the Atheist in a coccoon of invulnerability as if he or she will be guilty of heresy to allow him or herself to be convinced of the existence of God. No different from what the Catholic Church would do to Catholics who somehow would convert to another religion, or even a different Christian faction: The punishement of being burn alive in a public square. In other words, you guys have conventionalized not only about the impossibility that God could exist; but that Atheists have immunized themselves to that possibility, even if it became a fact to them. What is this, a Dark Age period for Athests?

 

[Ben Masada]

Mr. Ben Masada

How do we know the universe is the handiwork of God and not multiple gods acting in unison?

Good question Vendetta, and here is the answer:


The Absolute Unity of God


Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be supperfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

Ben:

 

[PolyHedral]

but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God.

...I'm not entirely sure that made grammatical, let alone logical sense. Possibility is applicable to everything logically consistent, by definition.

 

[Ben Masada]

I think you have misunderstood what i was saying. From your post declaring what all atheists think it appears you have some unfounded prejudices against that school of Thought. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god doesn't exist it is a lack of belief that god does, you are confusing anti-theism with atheism. Here is a comparison using geometry; atheism is to anti-theism as a rectangle is to a square.

I never denied the possibility for a universe creator to exist, I denied the certainty.

The quote from han solo was meant to be light hearted and in good humor, just because something is from a work of fiction doesn't mean it is an invalid point, rather I think it is a good point that stands on it's own, Assuming you watched the movies you would know that Han Solo eventually saw things that made him believe in the force. I was actually trying to put out an olive branch.

The point you brought up about the universe declaring the handiwork of god does not stand on it's own it requires faith in the divinity of the book. There are many things in holy books that are good points, not because they are in the books but simply because they are good points.

Tell me Proffesh, what is the difference between the "Belief that God does not exist" and the "Lack of belief that God exists?" There is hardly a difference. To
admit the possibility that God does exist, you are either a different Atheist or I
doubt that are an Atheist. And Agnostic maybe.

I understand about the olive branch you meant to exhibit. I saw the movie and I do understand what you mean. But regarding the faith you claim one needs to believe what the Bible says, I compare to the faith Atheists need to believe in scientific theories long before they are proved into facts. And when they are changed because they have been proved inaccurate, I compare to the faith the faithful of Jim Jones died for.

 

[Ben Masada]

Mr. Ben Masada

How do we know the universe is the handiwork of God and not multiple gods acting in unison?

According to the following Logic:

The Absolute Unit of God


Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being.

Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be supperfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity.

Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

Ben:

 

[Ben Masada]

...I'm not entirely sure that made grammatical, let alone logical sense. Possibility is applicable to everything logically consistent, by definition.

Sorry for the simile but, is it possible that more than a father fathered Jesus? I mean, Joseph and Pantera? No, because such a possibility would eliminate either one of them or both. Therefore, the possibility could not be applied to God. So,
possibility cannot be applied to everything logically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin, the problem is that you have dressed the Atheist in a coccoon of invulnerability as if he or she will be guilty of heresy to allow him or herself to be convinced of the existence of God. No different from what the Catholic Church would do to Catholics who somehow would convert to another religion, or even a different Christian faction: The punishement of being burn alive in a public square. In other words, you guys have conventionalized not only about the impossibility that God could exist; but that Atheists have immunized themselves to that possibility, even if it became a fact to them. What is this, a Dark Age period for Athests?

Whose posts are you reading? I know you quoted my post in yours, but you don't seem to be responding to what I wrote.

 

[Jacksnyte]

"Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being. "

What you are saying here makes no sense at all in relation to the verse you cited. All that verse is saying is that there are none like him. The verse in question says none of the things you are claiming it says! Try again!

 

[PolyHedral]

Sorry for the simile but, is it possible that more than a father fathered Jesus? I mean, Joseph and Pantera? No, because such a possibility would eliminate either one of them or both. Therefore, the possibility could not be applied to God. So,
possibility cannot be applied to everything logically.

An individual having 3 or more parents is trivial compared to some of the stuff God does in the Bible. It is not a logically inconsistent concept, and so is possible, though astronomically unlikely.

 

[Ben Masada]

An individual having 3 or more parents is trivial compared to some of the stuff God does in the Bible. It is not a logically inconsistent concept, and so is possible, though astronomically unlikely.

God does not do anything in the Bible. It is all done by man. If what's done is attributed to God, it is because that's natural of religions. The Bible was written by man, who had no choice but to refer to God in anthropomorphic terms.

 

[Ben Masada]

"Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?"

Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour.

More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God.

More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being. "

What you are saying here makes no sense at all in relation to the verse you cited. All that verse is saying is that there are none like him. The verse in question says none of the things you are claiming it says! Try again!

I am using Logic to explain the absolute unity of God and not making an exegesis of the verse. Does it answer your question?

 

[Ben Masada]

Whose posts are you reading? I know you quoted my post in yours, but you don't seem to be responding to what I wrote.

Yours. If I quoted you, it is because I am commenting on your reply to my post above. That's your post #504.

 

[PolyHedral]

God does not do anything in the Bible. It is all done by man. If what's done is attributed to God, it is because that's natural of religions. The Bible was written by man, who had no choice but to refer to God in anthropomorphic terms.

So where'd the plagues of Egypt come from?

 

[Ben Masada]

So where'd the plagues of Egypt come from?

Natural disasters which the writers, many years later, perhaps at the time of Ezra, when the Jews returned from exile in Babylon, a lot more literate, embellished into miracles to celebrate the Exodus from Egypt.

 

[proffesb]

Tell me Proffesh, what is the difference between the "Belief that God does not exist" and the "Lack of belief that God exists?" There is hardly a difference. To
admit the possibility that God does exist, you are either a different Atheist or I
doubt that are an Atheist. And Agnostic maybe.

"believing something isn't" and "Not believing something is" are similar, I agree, but they are not the same statement one is definitive and one is not.

I am definately agnostic, agnostic means not to know, but I lean towards not believing in God because the only evidence I have seen is, in my opinion, clearly man-made, there are people who think god may exist but are not certain as well, hence I consider myself an agnostic athiest. I can't see your title as I write this but as I recall it was simply Jewish, that does not describe whether you are orthodox or not, whether you believe in a literal or figurative interpretation and so on.

I understand about the olive branch you meant to exhibit. I saw the movie and I do understand what you mean. But regarding the faith you claim one needs to believe what the Bible says, I compare to the faith Atheists need to believe in scientific theories long before they are proved into facts. And when they are changed because they have been proved inaccurate, I compare to the faith the faithful of Jim Jones died for.

What theories have I shown my self to believe without proof?

I think you may be confusing me with someone else or making assumptions about me. As someone who comes from a scientific background I always question any theory or law so it makes sense to me. Scientific reasoning should always involve doubt even with things that are considered more or less certain. Mankind's understanding of the nature of the universe is growing exponentially and theories can and have been dis-proven.

My whole point of responding to your post was to say that it is ok not to know something and that your requirement of not being able to use that as response gave the appearance of small-mindedness and was not conducive to open debate.

 

[Ben Masada]

So where'd the plagues of Egypt come from?

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

From natural phenomena.