First any respect I might have had for his argument was immediately lost when he chose sarcasm and bigotry over objectivity. A Christian would be as likely to watch this as an evolutionist would be to watch expelled. But then again, this isn't meant for Christians is it? It's obviously meant for atheists, to make a point that belief in God is utterly rediculous. I wonder why atheists continually question God and Christian beliefs when they seem so settled that God cannot possibly exist? Why even bother? Nobody spends this amount of time on astrology, or Greek mythology, so why this?? Now to the argument itself. I won't get into detail about the many failures in the logic of his argument, but...

First any respect I might have had for his argument was immediately lost when he chose sarcasm and bigotry over objectivity. A Christian would be as likely to watch this as an evolutionist would be to watch expelled. But then again, this isn't meant for Christians is it? It's obviously meant for atheists, to make a point that belief in God is utterly rediculous. I wonder why atheists continually question God and Christian beliefs when they seem so settled that God cannot possibly exist? Why even bother? Nobody spends this amount of time on astrology, or Greek mythology, so why this?? Now to the argument itself. I won't get into detail about the many failures in the logic of his argument, but the main one stands above all the rest. And that's the concept of eternal life. Biblical belief proposes that man has an eternal life, though one day his mortal body will die. So, the question is not "would you kill your son, to save others" or "would you save your son, and kill others". The question should be "would you allow yourself to be separated from your son on this earth for a time, and give others the chance to join you in eternal life" or "would you be selfish, and save your son for the short time you have on this earth, and allow others to suffer for an eternity". Of course this is an extremely difficult notion for an atheist to comprehend, because he cannot wrap his head around the idea of eternal life after death. The thing I don't understand is how atheists can comfort themselves with the idea of no life after death. Does that even occur to you, or do you just ignore it? But an even more troubling question is this, would you allow his sacrafice to be in vain? When the gift is free? Atheists make it sound so difficult, but it really isn't. It's simply accepting the free gift of salvation, nothing more is required. I mean, what if you're wrong? Would you risk everything on the assumption that you're right, when it would have been so easy to accept?

@jmjoness

Now to the argument itself. I won't get into detail about the many failures in the logic of his argument, but the main one stands above all the rest. And that's the concept of eternal life.

First let me say, his opening statement turned me off too. It was the first time I saw this guy so I listened anyway.

His approach is, yes, bigoted and sarcastic. But his argument was quite solid.

Now to your argument about the argument. His main argument is the absurdity of requiring a blood sacrifice of his own son in order to save humankind when there were clearly far better options.

You said: "...failures in the logic of his argument, but the main one stands above all the...

@jmjoness

Now to the argument itself. I won't get into detail about the many failures in the logic of his argument, but the main one stands above all the rest. And that's the concept of eternal life.

First let me say, his opening statement turned me off too. It was the first time I saw this guy so I listened anyway.

His approach is, yes, bigoted and sarcastic. But his argument was quite solid.

Now to your argument about the argument. His main argument is the absurdity of requiring a blood sacrifice of his own son in order to save humankind when there were clearly far better options.

You said: "...failures in the logic of his argument, but the main one stands above all the rest. And that's the concept of eternal life."

You may have watched another video. He doesn't make such an argument here.

The major point that he makes over and over is that there were OTHER alternatives to torture and death to save not only his son but all else as well !! !! !!

On that subject matter (would you kill your own son to save others), given there were certainly other alternatives? Why, then, the gratuitous bloodshed and torture when it was completely unnecessary?

That is his argument. Option 3: save your son and a million people as well.

Please explain the faulty logic in his argument.

Aces I was attacking his argument from the point of his lack of understanding. He doesn't understand the concept of eternal life. Why is this important? Because if one understands the concept of eternal life, then one understands that the Son did not lose life. One understands that the Son and the million people were both able to be saved. But let's also explain why a blood sacrafice had to be given, according to Biblical belief.

According to Biblical belief, God set up an established law in Heaven. This law was that no one could sin (since sin disempowers a being, is "contageous", and is in opposition to God's nature. Allowing sin in heaven would be like mixing darkness and light, it ca...

Aces I was attacking his argument from the point of his lack of understanding. He doesn't understand the concept of eternal life. Why is this important? Because if one understands the concept of eternal life, then one understands that the Son did not lose life. One understands that the Son and the million people were both able to be saved. But let's also explain why a blood sacrafice had to be given, according to Biblical belief.

According to Biblical belief, God set up an established law in Heaven. This law was that no one could sin (since sin disempowers a being, is "contageous", and is in opposition to God's nature. Allowing sin in heaven would be like mixing darkness and light, it cannot be done. This also meant that one had to be "perfect"). Satan (and a third of the angels) violated this law, so Satan was cast out of Heaven into a place where his sin could hurt no one else (Hell).

When God created the world and mankind, he gave man his free will. God told man that he could do ANYTHING he wanted to, except eat one piece of fruit. God told man that if he ate that piece of fruit, he would die (which, in Biblical belief, implies eternal death as well. If one dies while he is not free of his sin, God cannot allow him into Heaven). Instead of believing God, man chose not to believe him (which dispels this man's argument that if people could see God, they would believe him, again according to
Biblical belief), and God carried out his promise (curse). So according to God's curse, all men should die an eternal death. God did not want this to happen, because he loved man, so he sent Himself in the form of his Son to take man's place. Think about it. You're talking about someone who went through His whole life never doing anything wrong, then at the end of 32 years being accused of things you've never done, and not only do you not respond to the accusations, you allow the sham trial to be carried out.

@jmjoness

So, the question is not "would you kill your son, to save others" or "would you save your son, and kill others". The question should be "would you allow yourself to be separated from your son on this earth for a time, and give others the chance to join you in eternal life" or "would you be selfish, and save your son for the short time you have on this earth, and allow others to suffer for an eternity".

Sorry, but hat's not the question, nor should it be because those are not the limit of options afforded to a god.

That was the part you completely ignored or just missed (the main part).

It is not imperative that anyone be tortured and be "separated from you...

@jmjoness

So, the question is not "would you kill your son, to save others" or "would you save your son, and kill others". The question should be "would you allow yourself to be separated from your son on this earth for a time, and give others the chance to join you in eternal life" or "would you be selfish, and save your son for the short time you have on this earth, and allow others to suffer for an eternity".

Sorry, but hat's not the question, nor should it be because those are not the limit of options afforded to a god.

That was the part you completely ignored or just missed (the main part).

It is not imperative that anyone be tortured and be "separated from your son on this earth for a time and give others the chance to join you in eternal life" later.

So, no. That is not the question, nor should it be.

Let's make sure you understand. It is NOT imperative that anyone be tortured and killed to be saved, forgiven, sent to heaven, or whatever, because there were (are) OTHER alternatives.

Now, unless you're suggesting that the only way god can "save" someone is for someone else to be tortured and killed, then you must agree...there are OTHER alternatives.

But an even more troubling question is this, would you allow his sacrafice to be in vain?

Quite the opposite. No self respecting Father would allow his son to be killed AT ALL when there were other alternatives.

When the gift is free?

Pretending such a "gift" was given, it is not free if it is in exchange for something else.

If it were "free" I wouldn't be required to pledge my soul for eternity in worship of this god or person. Further, if it were truly free, I wouldn't go to be eternally tortured in hell no matter what I believed, because whatever sin that it constituted will have already been paid.

Is it?

Let's make sure you understand. It is NOT imperative that anyone be tortured and killed to be saved, forgiven, sent to heaven, or whatever, because there were (are) OTHER alternatives.

First you seemed to miss my statement about the neccesity of the sacrafice of God. But let me say this, why should we even worry about that? That was God's decision, why does it matter that it happend this way? God made the sacrafice, not you, he doesn't demand that you sacrafice ANYTHING.

Quite the opposite. No self respecting Father would allow his son to be killed AT ALL when there were other alternatives.

You miss the point that the Son is God. They a...

Let's make sure you understand. It is NOT imperative that anyone be tortured and killed to be saved, forgiven, sent to heaven, or whatever, because there were (are) OTHER alternatives.

First you seemed to miss my statement about the neccesity of the sacrafice of God. But let me say this, why should we even worry about that? That was God's decision, why does it matter that it happend this way? God made the sacrafice, not you, he doesn't demand that you sacrafice ANYTHING.

Quite the opposite. No self respecting Father would allow his son to be killed AT ALL when there were other alternatives.

You miss the point that the Son is God. They are all the same person, another confusing and oft misunderstoof notion. Also, the reality (in Biblical perspective) still eludes you. Let's say, for example, that you were God. You wanted to save mankind. Would you go to Earth (in the form of a lower being), live out the life a peasent (that wasn't as easy as it may sound in Roman times) and then later be tortured and killed. And go to Hell. Remember according to Biblical belief, this is the only way God can save man. Would you have done that, when you could have sat on your lofty throne and simply wished the earth away into nonexistence (assuming he can even do that)?

If it were "free" I wouldn't be required to pledge my soul for eternity in worship of this god or person. Further, if it were truly free, I wouldn't go to be eternally tortured in hell no matter what I believed, because whatever sin that it constituted will have already been paid.

First of all you don't have to "pledge your soul for an eternity of worship". That's another oft misrepresented notion. This isn't a draconian or Greek god, he's not going to sit on his throne for the rest of eternity and demand that you sing praises to him. Also, as to "I wouldn't go to be eternally tortured in hell", this is another misunderstood notion.

@JmJoness

Remember that this is all Biblical belief, I hope what I said made sense.

Yes. I've known the stories since childhood.

Do you mind if I ask why you believe it?

(I don't mean the fear-factor alternative of Pascal's wager, or the promise of heaven after death, or the hope of immortality. But why do you believe that they're true?)

I was a Christian for many years, then a Deist, then an agnostic.

But each change was based on my lack of ability to lie to myself and to others. My honesty wouldn't allow me to be Christian because too much of it was either unsubstantiated or already proved scientifically false.

As a Deist I could at least generalize, without ha...

@JmJoness

Remember that this is all Biblical belief, I hope what I said made sense.

Yes. I've known the stories since childhood.

Do you mind if I ask why you believe it?

(I don't mean the fear-factor alternative of Pascal's wager, or the promise of heaven after death, or the hope of immortality. But why do you believe that they're true?)

I was a Christian for many years, then a Deist, then an agnostic.

But each change was based on my lack of ability to lie to myself and to others. My honesty wouldn't allow me to be Christian because too much of it was either unsubstantiated or already proved scientifically false.

As a Deist I could at least generalize, without having to believe in (in my mind) made up stuff -- like that story about god setting up an established law in heaven -- can anyone demonstrate any of that to be true?

I could never tell someone that story and act like it's true, because I know that neither I nor anyone else knows it to be true.

When I examine the presuppositions of Christianity, I can't find demonstrable truth. With Deism, I'm only required "one" lie.

With agnosticism, I can be completely honest.

But let me say this, why should we even worry about that? That was God's decision, why does it matter that it happend this way? God made the sacrafice, not you, he doesn't demand that you sacrafice ANYTHING.

It's the problem of honesty. Am I to believe that a god created himself as a human, to be sacrificed, so that his own creation (us) would be spared his own wrath?

It's not even plausible, because it's unnecessary. Do you have to kill your own child in order to forgive him?

I don't. Wouldn't a god know that?

And if someone doesn't believe the story, because their brain tells them there's something wrong with this picture...

They get tortured for eternity?

If ...

But let me say this, why should we even worry about that? That was God's decision, why does it matter that it happend this way? God made the sacrafice, not you, he doesn't demand that you sacrafice ANYTHING.

It's the problem of honesty. Am I to believe that a god created himself as a human, to be sacrificed, so that his own creation (us) would be spared his own wrath?

It's not even plausible, because it's unnecessary. Do you have to kill your own child in order to forgive him?

I don't. Wouldn't a god know that?

And if someone doesn't believe the story, because their brain tells them there's something wrong with this picture...

They get tortured for eternity?

If good were the mark of a god, and evil was the mark of a devil, I couldn't come up with a better demonstration of a devil. Could you?

(I don't mean the fear-factor alternative of Pascal's wager, or the promise of heaven after death, or the hope of immortality. But why do you believe that they're true?)

Mmm, too many people believe these things simply because they are afraid. Fear is no reason to believe anything. That's one of the reasons I reject organized religous institutions, they all are hell bent on controlling simple minded people with superstition and outright lies.

I believe it because I know that there is something out there besides us. You say you don't lie to yourself, but is that true? Can you honestly believe that the world came about (one strand of dna, billions of pieces of inform...

(I don't mean the fear-factor alternative of Pascal's wager, or the promise of heaven after death, or the hope of immortality. But why do you believe that they're true?)

Mmm, too many people believe these things simply because they are afraid. Fear is no reason to believe anything. That's one of the reasons I reject organized religous institutions, they all are hell bent on controlling simple minded people with superstition and outright lies.

I believe it because I know that there is something out there besides us. You say you don't lie to yourself, but is that true? Can you honestly believe that the world came about (one strand of dna, billions of pieces of information) by random chance? And even if you do believe all the theories, what do you believe started the universe in the first place? Even science has no answer for the origin of our universe. Creation of our universe has not been disproven by science (though it certainly has disproven the rediculous lies spread by "creation science") No matter how far science goes, it can never go back to the very beginning.

I am a believer in the Bible because it makes sense. I see a loving God, who sacraficed himself, and wants to spend eternity with mankind in paradise. I long for the hope of a world free of this wickedness and depravity, Christianity offers me that hope. Let me put it this way. If I'm wrong, what harm was there in my belief? It didn't harm anyone else. If I'm wrong I will simply fade into non existence and will never know the difference. But if I'm right, well then my dream is attainable. That's not out of fear of eternal damnation, that's out of desire for an evil free paradise.

You say you don't lie to yourself, but is that true?

That's my goal and my ever watchful mind. Surely I am not entirely successful. But it's my personal diligence. I seek truth.

Can you honestly believe that the world came about (one strand of dna, billions of pieces of information) by random chance?

No. Mount Improbable was built over a very long period of time, not a finished product from start to finish in one fell swoop, and no, not random -- chiseled by environmental necessity.

But if you're suggesting that a highly intelligent complex life form requires a creator... then you'd you have to abandon that logic to explain the highly intelligent complex li...

You say you don't lie to yourself, but is that true?

That's my goal and my ever watchful mind. Surely I am not entirely successful. But it's my personal diligence. I seek truth.

Can you honestly believe that the world came about (one strand of dna, billions of pieces of information) by random chance?

No. Mount Improbable was built over a very long period of time, not a finished product from start to finish in one fell swoop, and no, not random -- chiseled by environmental necessity.

But if you're suggesting that a highly intelligent complex life form requires a creator... then you'd you have to abandon that logic to explain the highly intelligent complex life form that created that life form. The creator would have to be at least as intelligent and complex, requiring an even more complex creator in order for itself to exist.

The logic fails quickly, unless of course one makes up a lie and says... everything requires such a creator... EXCEPT the original creator! (Special pleading)

started the universe?

Matter and energy are eternal; see: Conservation of matter; conservation of energy. There was no "start" of the universe, only the start of events in the universe, one of which (the big bang) that we label "beginning".

But the matter and energy didn't suddenly appear. They were already there. We call beginning the point at which the space quickly expanded.

I am a believer in the Bible because it makes sense. I see a loving God..

Is the god in the Old Testament the same as the god in the New? (Just wondering.)

That's not out of fear of eternal damnation, that's out of desire for an evil free paradise.

Thank you.

I don't understand why the sacrafice of God bothers you. Why does God sacraficing himself bother you?

Ah, scratch that. I missed what you said earlier.

It's the problem of honesty. Am I to believe that a god created himself as a human, to be sacrificed, so that his own creation (us) would be spared his own wrath?

No, you're not. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. God did not create hell for us, it was meant for satan. Satan tempted man with sin, and man accepted. By accepting, we allowed sin to enter our hearts. Sin causes people to die. It's like a disease, one that needs to be cured. God brought that cure with his sacrafice. The cure ...

I don't understand why the sacrafice of God bothers you. Why does God sacraficing himself bother you?

Ah, scratch that. I missed what you said earlier.

It's the problem of honesty. Am I to believe that a god created himself as a human, to be sacrificed, so that his own creation (us) would be spared his own wrath?

No, you're not. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. God did not create hell for us, it was meant for satan. Satan tempted man with sin, and man accepted. By accepting, we allowed sin to enter our hearts. Sin causes people to die. It's like a disease, one that needs to be cured. God brought that cure with his sacrafice. The cure must be brought with a sacrafice, because the only way to rid sin is to remove it and replace it with something pure. That purity could only come about by someone living a perfect life and then sacraficing himself. Since that perfect person is not consumed by sin, he can live in paradise. The only one who could live a perfect life was God himself. There's also the sin blood line (we inherit our sin from our ancestors). God did not inherit this sin when he became a man, because he was not born into man's blood line. He did not inherit the sin, and he did not succumb to temptation. That's what the Bible proposes.

Matter and energy are eternal; see: Conservation of matter; conservation of energy. There was no "start" of the universe, only the start of events in the universe, one of which (the big bang) that we label "beginning". But the matter and energy didn't suddenly appear. They were already there. We call beginning the point at which the space quickly expanded.

Yes, but there was a point when energy and matter (if I understand it correctly, they're actually two forms of the same thing) collided. What started the collision? And where did energy and matter come from? They're eternal? Well what's the difference between matter and energy being eternal and God being eternal. You're pro...

Matter and energy are eternal; see: Conservation of matter; conservation of energy. There was no "start" of the universe, only the start of events in the universe, one of which (the big bang) that we label "beginning". But the matter and energy didn't suddenly appear. They were already there. We call beginning the point at which the space quickly expanded.

Yes, but there was a point when energy and matter (if I understand it correctly, they're actually two forms of the same thing) collided. What started the collision? And where did energy and matter come from? They're eternal? Well what's the difference between matter and energy being eternal and God being eternal. You're proposing the exact same thing I am, only yours lacks the intelligence of a creator.

Nor would I need to kill myself to forgive my creation, (even if it's not a real sacrifice because I'm actually immortal).

And again, why does it matter if God wants to kill himself to save his creation? Let's say he doesn't have to (which is not what the Bible proposes), but he just wanted to. Why does it matter? Because you think he could have done it a better way? How do you give people the choice to choose their own destiny if you create a giant telivision in the sky and broadcast your existense to all of humanity (I believe that's an example he gave)?? If he was going to do that, then he wouldn't have given us a free will in the first place. You're limiting God yourse...

Nor would I need to kill myself to forgive my creation, (even if it's not a real sacrifice because I'm actually immortal).

And again, why does it matter if God wants to kill himself to save his creation? Let's say he doesn't have to (which is not what the Bible proposes), but he just wanted to. Why does it matter? Because you think he could have done it a better way? How do you give people the choice to choose their own destiny if you create a giant telivision in the sky and broadcast your existense to all of humanity (I believe that's an example he gave)?? If he was going to do that, then he wouldn't have given us a free will in the first place. You're limiting God yourself. You're assuming that he didn't know man would sin. God knew the path man would take from the beginning. So the real question behind the question is: Why was God foolish enough to trust us with a free will?? Well then your limitig God by saying he wasn't being intelligent when he gave us a free will. Also, do you think we should have been created as mindless robots, forced to follow the edicts of our creator?? I think I'll take free will myself.

That purity could only come about by someone living a perfect life and then sacraficing himself.

Vicarious redemption. The perfection of another person could no more be credited to you than your crimes debited to another person.

How does the brutal sacrifice of your beautiful pristine sinless 4-year old daughter wipe clean the heinous crimes of Saddam Husein? Even if his crimes could be wiped clean by this notion, the EFFECTS of his crimes remain.

Vicarious payment is a phony.

Well what's the difference between matter and energy being eternal and God being eternal. You're proposing the exact same thing I am, only yours lacks the intelligence of a creator.[/quote...

read more»

That purity could only come about by someone living a perfect life and then sacraficing himself.

Vicarious redemption. The perfection of another person could no more be credited to you than your crimes debited to another person.

How does the brutal sacrifice of your beautiful pristine sinless 4-year old daughter wipe clean the heinous crimes of Saddam Husein? Even if his crimes could be wiped clean by this notion, the EFFECTS of his crimes remain.

Vicarious payment is a phony.

Well what's the difference between matter and energy being eternal and God being eternal. You're proposing the exact same thing I am, only yours lacks the intelligence of a creator.

Correction, mine lacks the unverifiable stories of mythic dogma. Deism can at least be supported by science, with one exception... god.

And then, take away the one allowable lie of deism and what remains?

If god exists at all, he can be studied through science! Because it would be studying god directly! (This is different than made up stories, it would be the real McCoy.)

Did the person who was killed get just compensation by "my" death, and not the death of the actual murderer?

First of all the person who was murdered cannot recieve "just payment" by the death of anyone. The only way he can get anything is if the action could be taken back, and it can't. And that's assuming he would even want to come back, this life isn't exactly pretty for everyone (if anyone). Since the action of the person can't be taken back, the law demands a price from that person. This is seen as "justice". The law only demands a price though, it doesn't matter who pays that price. Now, could Eve take back what she did in the garden (remember that sin is sin, no ma...

Did the person who was killed get just compensation by "my" death, and not the death of the actual murderer?

First of all the person who was murdered cannot recieve "just payment" by the death of anyone. The only way he can get anything is if the action could be taken back, and it can't. And that's assuming he would even want to come back, this life isn't exactly pretty for everyone (if anyone). Since the action of the person can't be taken back, the law demands a price from that person. This is seen as "justice". The law only demands a price though, it doesn't matter who pays that price. Now, could Eve take back what she did in the garden (remember that sin is sin, no matter what the action actually is)? No, she couldn't. The law demanded a price, and God said "I'll pay it". Not even God is above the law, he can't just say "well we'll let this one go." That would be paramount to letting Hitler go, obviously you wouldn't agree to that.

See what I mean? All day long you've been speaking on behalf of god "as if" god communicated to you these things.

You're thinking from the view point that the Bible is a lie. I believe what the Bible says. Like I said, there's no harm in me believing the Bible. If I'm wrong, I'll only fade away. No harm done.

You trust in the inference of science (proven to be faulty) and the power of human reasoning (also proven to be faulty). How is that any different?

One is based on evidence and a correction mechanism that works wonderfully well. The other has no verifiability and is not an avenue to knowledge.

Plus, belief in God requires believing in something that cannot be observed with any of the senses or reasoning of man.

You made that up.

If there was evidence of God you would be forced to believe he was
true. And even if he was present, you still wouldn't accept him. Your
sin would keep you from it.

That's crazy. Wrong. And... you made that up.


How ab...

You trust in the inference of science (proven to be faulty) and the power of human reasoning (also proven to be faulty). How is that any different?

One is based on evidence and a correction mechanism that works wonderfully well. The other has no verifiability and is not an avenue to knowledge.

Plus, belief in God requires believing in something that cannot be observed with any of the senses or reasoning of man.

You made that up.

If there was evidence of God you would be forced to believe he was
true. And even if he was present, you still wouldn't accept him. Your
sin would keep you from it.

That's crazy. Wrong. And... you made that up.


How about this, jmjoness. Let's say that you could NEVER speak about any god any information at all, that you couldn't demonstrate as true...!

What would you say?

One is based on evidence and a correction mechanism that works wonderfully well. The other has no verifiability and is not an avenue to knowledge.

Really? That's what atheists said 4-500 years ago as well, I wonder what they would think of their beliefs if they were still alive...

You made that up.

If you don't believe that belief in God requires a belief in something that is unverifiable by your own senses (barring God doing something in your own life, one that could not be proven to others) then you have been lying to me this whole time. Your biggest problem with God is that he cannot be seen, smelt, heard or touched!

That's ...

read more»

One is based on evidence and a correction mechanism that works wonderfully well. The other has no verifiability and is not an avenue to knowledge.

Really? That's what atheists said 4-500 years ago as well, I wonder what they would think of their beliefs if they were still alive...

You made that up.

If you don't believe that belief in God requires a belief in something that is unverifiable by your own senses (barring God doing something in your own life, one that could not be proven to others) then you have been lying to me this whole time. Your biggest problem with God is that he cannot be seen, smelt, heard or touched!

That's crazy. Wrong. And... you made that up.

Well I believe what the Bible says. I guess that's something we won't be able to reconcile. But let me ask you something, if God appeared to you, would you accept him? Or would you think it was your imagination? Or some other freak "incident". Just think about it.

How about this, jmjoness. Let's say that you could NEVER speak about any god any information at all, that you couldn't demonstrate as true...!

I would be an atheist. And we would be in perfect agreement. I would like you to answer my last question though. What hope do you have for a life without evil, disease, hunger, war, etc etc..? As I said in my last post, I can't hold to that. If I believed I was going to fade away after my death, I would stop my life now. What point would there be in continuing?

If you don't believe that belief in God requires a belief in something that is unverifiable by your own senses (barring God doing something in your own life, one that could not be proven to others) then you have been lying to me this whole time. Your biggest problem with God is that he cannot be seen, smelt, heard or touched!

? How do you figure? Aren't you making a very big assumption here? Again you're just making stuff up to account for the fact that you have no direct knowledge of this god.

If there is an all powerful being, he can just show up, in public, in front of everybody. The limits you place on your own god is an indication that should be apparent to you.

It's a...

If you don't believe that belief in God requires a belief in something that is unverifiable by your own senses (barring God doing something in your own life, one that could not be proven to others) then you have been lying to me this whole time. Your biggest problem with God is that he cannot be seen, smelt, heard or touched!

? How do you figure? Aren't you making a very big assumption here? Again you're just making stuff up to account for the fact that you have no direct knowledge of this god.

If there is an all powerful being, he can just show up, in public, in front of everybody. The limits you place on your own god is an indication that should be apparent to you.

It's apparent to me; but it should be apparent to you also.

But if you're suggesting that a highly intelligent complex life form requires a creator... then you'd you have to abandon that logic to explain the highly intelligent complex life form that created that life form. The creator would have to be at least as intelligent and complex, requiring an even more complex creator in order for itself to exist

The answer to this is that I believe God is eternal.

Matter and energy are eternal; see: Conservation of matter; conservation of energy. There was no "start" of the universe, only the start of events in the universe, one of which (the big bang) that we label "beginning".

The other has no verifiabi...

read more»

But if you're suggesting that a highly intelligent complex life form requires a creator... then you'd you have to abandon that logic to explain the highly intelligent complex life form that created that life form. The creator would have to be at least as intelligent and complex, requiring an even more complex creator in order for itself to exist

The answer to this is that I believe God is eternal.

Matter and energy are eternal; see: Conservation of matter; conservation of energy. There was no "start" of the universe, only the start of events in the universe, one of which (the big bang) that we label "beginning".

The other has no verifiability and is not an avenue to knowledge.

If I believed I was going to fade away after my death, I would stop my life now. What point would there be in continuing?

Do you see the similarity between our beliefs? You believe the universe is eternal, I believe God is eternal. Yours leads to a furtherance of knowledge, mine leads to a hope of a better life when this is over. They both provide value in their own way, but do they have to conflict? What if they could be combined, and value could be gained from both?

The answer to this is that I believe God is eternal.

And "god is eternal" answers the question of complex life needing complex life to exist, how? (The question has nothing to do with longevity.)

---

You're arguing why God does'nt show himself. If God showed himself, man
would be forced to serve him. Do you disagree with that statement?

No. But if he acts anything like the god of the Old Testament, we'd be smart to do so out of fear of being roasted (certainly not out of love).

And I would like you to answer my question. What hope do you have of a
life without evil and despair? What do you believe is going to happen
when you die?

I haven't thoug...

The answer to this is that I believe God is eternal.

And "god is eternal" answers the question of complex life needing complex life to exist, how? (The question has nothing to do with longevity.)

---

You're arguing why God does'nt show himself. If God showed himself, man
would be forced to serve him. Do you disagree with that statement?

No. But if he acts anything like the god of the Old Testament, we'd be smart to do so out of fear of being roasted (certainly not out of love).

And I would like you to answer my question. What hope do you have of a
life without evil and despair? What do you believe is going to happen
when you die?

I haven't thought much in those terms. Much evil comes from ignorance and want. Those are solvable through human advancement; so is immortality eventually.

But the eradication of evil completely? That's a very relative thing, so to me it's more a matter of improving the conditions under which we live.

To eradicate evil absolutely would be paramount to eradicating good as well.

Despair? Again, by improving our quality of life and expectations.

When I die? If my memory serves me correctly, it will be the same as before I was born. And my memory has no knowledge of existence prior to birth. That's subjective.

Objectively, of all the hundreds of billions of things that have died, there is no actual evidence of a single one becoming immortal and showing up to demonstrate it. (Except in stories.)

BTW, why doesn't Jesus walk the earth now, in plain sight so everyone can see, all 2000 years (as was pointed out in the video) that he in fact immortal?

Wouldn't that be a demonstration "in real life" that everyone can understand?

Instead, 2000 years later... people are still waiting. Is there a lesson in there?

And "god is eternal" answers the question of complex life needing complex life to exist, how? (The question has nothing to do with longevity.)

Well you said that God would need complex life to exist. Not if he's eternal, because he's always existed. But that paradox is no more puzzling then where matter and energy came from. The fact is in a way they're both religions that sometimes conflict. My "in the Beginning" starts with God, yours starts with mindless energy and matter.

No. But if he acts anything like the god of the Old Testament, we'd be smart to do so out of fear of being roasted (certainly not out of love).

Then honestly you don't u...

And "god is eternal" answers the question of complex life needing complex life to exist, how? (The question has nothing to do with longevity.)

Well you said that God would need complex life to exist. Not if he's eternal, because he's always existed. But that paradox is no more puzzling then where matter and energy came from. The fact is in a way they're both religions that sometimes conflict. My "in the Beginning" starts with God, yours starts with mindless energy and matter.

No. But if he acts anything like the god of the Old Testament, we'd be smart to do so out of fear of being roasted (certainly not out of love).

Then honestly you don't understand the nature of the Biblical God.

When I die? If my memory serves me correctly, it will be the same as before I was born. And my memory has no knowledge of existence prior to birth. That's subjective.

You have a point. But my point still stands as well, atheism offers you no insight into what might or might not happen. You simply remain ignorant of it. Like I said, if I'm right, then my beliefs are worth it. If I'm wrong, no harm done.

BTW, why doesn't Jesus walk the earth now, in plain sight so everyone can see, all 2000 years (as was pointed out in the video) that he in fact immortal?

Wouldn't that be a demonstration "in real life" that everyone can understand?

Instead, 2000 years later... people are still waiting. Is there a lesson in there?

Honestly I very much doubt that your ignorant of the answer to that question. He died a physical death, that's not disputed. His spirit, his soul, is what is immortal. As are we all. And my answer to why this wouldn't be a good "demonstration" is the same as why God would not appear in his own form. Mankind would be forced to serve him, forced to believe it was true. God wants us to decide for ourself.

I define evil as anything that "disempowers" yourself or others.

Evil is a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical judgment, often used to describe intentional acts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes intentional acts that are kind, just, or unselfish.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil ]

This is the common definition and understanding of the term.

I looked also at Merriam-Webster, Answers.com, and Dictionary.com and found nothing resembling "disempowers" or disempowerment, or anything relating to any form of empowering as a description for evil.

I understa...

I define evil as anything that "disempowers" yourself or others.

Evil is a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical judgment, often used to describe intentional acts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes intentional acts that are kind, just, or unselfish.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil ]

This is the common definition and understanding of the term.

I looked also at Merriam-Webster, Answers.com, and Dictionary.com and found nothing resembling "disempowers" or disempowerment, or anything relating to any form of empowering as a description for evil.

I understand the common definition perfectly well. I admit, I'm not sure what your definition implies. (Or, even why you've changed a descriptive term into something a bit ambiguous.)

Is gaining power inherently good, while losing power inherently bad??? I would think "evil" has to do with how one uses power or treats others with less power, but that just resembles the original definition. I'm only guessing on the "empowerment" thing.


-----

Well you said that God would need complex life to exist. Not if he's eternal, because he's always existed.

Your answer appears to be non sequitur because there is no causal link between "eternal" and "requiring a creator to for complex life".

Perhaps I wasn't clear originally. I inquired if you were suggesting that a highly intelligent complex life form required a creator in order for that highly complex life form to exist.

I then suggested you'd have to abandon that requirement if the "creator" of that intelligent life form DID NOT have to have a creator that created IT, as IT would serve as evidence that such a life form could in fact exist without such a requireme...

Well you said that God would need complex life to exist. Not if he's eternal, because he's always existed.

Your answer appears to be non sequitur because there is no causal link between "eternal" and "requiring a creator to for complex life".

Perhaps I wasn't clear originally. I inquired if you were suggesting that a highly intelligent complex life form required a creator in order for that highly complex life form to exist.

I then suggested you'd have to abandon that requirement if the "creator" of that intelligent life form DID NOT have to have a creator that created IT, as IT would serve as evidence that such a life form could in fact exist without such a requirement.

But you're saying, "...not if God is eternal BECAUSE he's always existed."

Never mind the circular conclusion, the god itself is evidence that complex life can in fact exist WITHOUT it needing a creator.

And since complex life does NOT require a creator to exist (such as your eternal being didn't need one) then to claim that complex life "requires" a creator would be inherently false.

Either complex life requires a creator to exist... or it doesn't.

But that paradox is no more puzzling then where matter and energy came from.

The conservation of matter, and the conservation of energy (among the first laws of physics) demonstrate that matter and energy could not have come "from" somewhere, but have always been here in one form or another. They could not, in other words, have been "created" without an equal amount of matter and energy to create them! Thus, matter / energy can neither be created (added to) or destroyed (subtracted from).

The fact is in a way they're both religions that sometimes conflict.

Did you redefine "religion?"

No, physics (or for that matter science) is not a religion. Science is...

But that paradox is no more puzzling then where matter and energy came from.

The conservation of matter, and the conservation of energy (among the first laws of physics) demonstrate that matter and energy could not have come "from" somewhere, but have always been here in one form or another. They could not, in other words, have been "created" without an equal amount of matter and energy to create them! Thus, matter / energy can neither be created (added to) or destroyed (subtracted from).

The fact is in a way they're both religions that sometimes conflict.

Did you redefine "religion?"

No, physics (or for that matter science) is not a religion. Science is based on evidence, reason, and exhaustive testing for truthfulness and accuracy of conclusions.

Religion is based on pretending, buttressed by faith (acceptance without evidence, or in spite of the evidence). It is closer to the OPPOSITE of science!

My "in the Beginning" starts with God, yours starts with mindless energy and matter.

Again, if you understood the demonstrable laws of conservation of matter and energy, you'd know that to be a false statement.

Since matter and energy are eternal, your "in the beginning" is only a metaphor, not an actual origin of existence. Even if your god existed, he would have to be the very matter and energy that is here now.

If that's what you're referring to, you're talking about Deism. You're simply labeling the efficacy of the universe "God". Scientists call it Nature. But it is not personal; it simply is what it is.

On the other hand, if you're talking a conscious "creator" of this wonderful universe ....

...then you're fully back into the religious realm of 'pretending'. And therein lies the difference.

describe intentional acts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish.

Maybe disempower is the wrong term. Maybe harm is better. Anything that harms yourself or another is evil. Any action that is cruel, unjust, or selfish is either harmful to yourself or others. You said that eradicating evil would be paramount to eradicating good as well, that is false. If one were to completely eradicate light, would that eradicate darkness as well? I don't know if that's a good metaphor, it's the only one I can think of at the moment...

I then suggested you'd have to abandon that requirement if the
"creator" of that intelligent life form DID NOT have to have a creator
that created IT, as I...

read more»

describe intentional acts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish.

Maybe disempower is the wrong term. Maybe harm is better. Anything that harms yourself or another is evil. Any action that is cruel, unjust, or selfish is either harmful to yourself or others. You said that eradicating evil would be paramount to eradicating good as well, that is false. If one were to completely eradicate light, would that eradicate darkness as well? I don't know if that's a good metaphor, it's the only one I can think of at the moment...

I then suggested you'd have to abandon that requirement if the
"creator" of that intelligent life form DID NOT have to have a creator
that created IT, as IT would serve as evidence that such a life form
could in fact exist without such a requirement.

Does intelligent life require a creator? Only if that life is mortal (subject to time, i.e. has a beginning and an end). Mortal life came about through a process of change (time). It had a BEGINNING. God did not come about through a process of change (time) because he is ETERNAL. He does not have a BEGINNING. That's the difference, life on earth had a beginning, God didn't.

They could not, in other words, have been "created" without an equal
amount of matter and energy to create them! Thus, matter / energy can
neither be created (added to) or destroyed (subtracted from).

So it's eternal. It had no beginning, or end. Like I say, that's no more confusing then God being eternal.

Religion is based on pretending, buttressed by faith (acceptance
without evidence, or in spite of the evidence). It is closer to the
OPPOSITE of science!

I would say you're the one redefining religion my friend. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often based on supernatural claims. It is NOT based on pretending, I do not pretend or lie to myself or others. I was pointing to similarities between our beliefs. My beliefs are based on claims made by the Bible, some of which are supernatural (and therefore cannot be subject to scientific examination) and some of which are not. Your beliefs are based on human reasoning and inference from evidence that is presented to ...

Religion is based on pretending, buttressed by faith (acceptance
without evidence, or in spite of the evidence). It is closer to the
OPPOSITE of science!

I would say you're the one redefining religion my friend. Religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often based on supernatural claims. It is NOT based on pretending, I do not pretend or lie to myself or others. I was pointing to similarities between our beliefs. My beliefs are based on claims made by the Bible, some of which are supernatural (and therefore cannot be subject to scientific examination) and some of which are not. Your beliefs are based on human reasoning and inference from evidence that is presented to you, which is (sometimes) subject to scientific examination. Both have assumptions inherent in them, both make claims that cannot be substantiated to everyone's satisfaction.

Does intelligent life require a creator? Only if that life is mortal....

I don't suppose you can see the circular reasoning here, or the special pleading.

You're simply saying, god doesn't require a creator because he didn't have a creator, because he's immortal; immortal because he didn't have a creator, because he's immortal, because he didn't have a beginning; didn't have a beginning because he didn't have a creator.... etc..

Also, the special pleading: Intelligent life requires a creator... unless it didn't have a beginning.

You are simply "defining" that a creator is not necessary if it didn't have a beginning. You are defining god exempt from a requirement to ...

Does intelligent life require a creator? Only if that life is mortal....

I don't suppose you can see the circular reasoning here, or the special pleading.

You're simply saying, god doesn't require a creator because he didn't have a creator, because he's immortal; immortal because he didn't have a creator, because he's immortal, because he didn't have a beginning; didn't have a beginning because he didn't have a creator.... etc..

Also, the special pleading: Intelligent life requires a creator... unless it didn't have a beginning.

You are simply "defining" that a creator is not necessary if it didn't have a beginning. You are defining god exempt from a requirement to which all others must apply.

Using that special pleading, I could simply "define" god as completely dumb, unless it had a beginning.

Watch. You said: "God did not come about through a process of change (time) because he is ETERNAL."

Using your special pleading I am claiming that god is completely dumb, because he "did not come about through a process of change (time) because he is ETERNAL".

Presto! I simply "defined" god dumb BECAUSE he is eternal, like you did.

And you cannot "define" god as "already knowing" because prior to the "doing" of creation (which he cannot do if he cannot change), there was nothing in existence to be known.

See? We can "define" anything we want. But the question is... is it true? Where is the evidence to support any of it?

In science one must support the conclusion with demonstrable evidence!

What evidence do you produce to support
1. a god
2. that is infinitely intelligent
3. that created a universe
4. that didn't have a creator itself
5. that gets mad and tortures people that don't buy it?

And how can I differentiate this set of unverifiable claims vs any other set of unverifiable claims?

One is pretending, the other requires evidence.

You're saying that if I say that intelligent life on earth requires an intelligent creator, that would mean that God would have required an intelligent creator as well, and so forth.


Well first of all I'm saying that I cannot see how the universe could have come to be (as it is now) without some sort of intelligence behind it (forget life for a moment). Whether you go back to the laws of nature, or the beginning of events in our universe, or eternality of energy and matter, or any other event: you still cannot explain how all of these things came by random chance. No matter how much time it is given. What started the chain of events (time)? What formed the laws of nature? How did energ...

You're saying that if I say that intelligent life on earth requires an intelligent creator, that would mean that God would have required an intelligent creator as well, and so forth.


Well first of all I'm saying that I cannot see how the universe could have come to be (as it is now) without some sort of intelligence behind it (forget life for a moment). Whether you go back to the laws of nature, or the beginning of events in our universe, or eternality of energy and matter, or any other event: you still cannot explain how all of these things came by random chance. No matter how much time it is given. What started the chain of events (time)? What formed the laws of nature? How did energy and matter come to be (hitting the eternity thing on the head there)? You may be satisfied with the different theories and models predicting how these things might have happened randomly, but I most certainly am not.

Now onto life. Life had a begginning, and it has an end. Something started life (whether you say it happend randomly, or it was brought from another planet, or it was brought about by a superior intelligence). Does it nescessarily require a superior intelligence? How am I supposed to know? I wasn't there. To me there are two options you can accept. 1) it was created by an intelligent being. 2) it was formed randomly, or it was brought from another planet (by aliens, perhaps?). Life being formed by an intelligent being makes far more since to me. Now, again, does God require a Creator if mortal life required one? No, he doesn't. Because, just like energy and matter, he doesn't come from anywhere. He just simply is. Now that's based on the assumption he exists. Again, is there proof for God? No. That is the whole point, I don't know how I can stress that enough.

What really gets me is, do you really think that hundreds of people, down through the course of the history of the Bible, lied about all those things?

You're talking about four thousand years of history, and hundreds and hundreds of people writing it out, all of them twisting and manipulating and lying and cheating? That, I believe, couldn't even be accomplished with today's technology and methods, let alone with what they had back then.

To accept God is to accept what the Bible says, there is no evidence or proof. If you want to put God in a box and say that he has to meet your expectations of what he ought to do, well then you're simply defining God yourself, aren't you? You're saying BECAUSE there is no evidence, he cannot exist. Yet that's unscientific itself, because there is always the understanding that there might still be evid...

You're talking about four thousand years of history, and hundreds and hundreds of people writing it out, all of them twisting and manipulating and lying and cheating? That, I believe, couldn't even be accomplished with today's technology and methods, let alone with what they had back then.

To accept God is to accept what the Bible says, there is no evidence or proof. If you want to put God in a box and say that he has to meet your expectations of what he ought to do, well then you're simply defining God yourself, aren't you? You're saying BECAUSE there is no evidence, he cannot exist. Yet that's unscientific itself, because there is always the understanding that there might still be evidence out there. There wasn't evidence for evolution, or shape of the earth, or any number of thigns 3-400 years ago. Does that mean that they didn't exist? I think not.

Then you might say, well people believe in God already, belief in those examples came after the evidence was presented. Well now you're assuming that all the claims made by various peoples in the Bible were lies. I choose to believe them as truth. That's the difference. (ofcourse you also have to admit that you too have to believe what scientists say, you have to assume that they are not lying)

@jmjoness

You're saying that if I say that intelligent life on earth requires an intelligent creator, that would mean that God would have required an intelligent creator as well, and so forth.

I am saying if intelligent life AT ALL requires a creator, then the creator can neither be alive nor intelligent, otherwise he too (if he's alive and intelligent) requires a creator.

Either intelligent life requires a creator or it doesn't. If there is a creator... and such a creator is alive and intelligent, and it itself did NOT require the services of its own creator to exist...

Then said creator is perfect and sufficeint evidence that intelligent life does NOT requir...

@jmjoness

You're saying that if I say that intelligent life on earth requires an intelligent creator, that would mean that God would have required an intelligent creator as well, and so forth.

I am saying if intelligent life AT ALL requires a creator, then the creator can neither be alive nor intelligent, otherwise he too (if he's alive and intelligent) requires a creator.

Either intelligent life requires a creator or it doesn't. If there is a creator... and such a creator is alive and intelligent, and it itself did NOT require the services of its own creator to exist...

Then said creator is perfect and sufficeint evidence that intelligent life does NOT require a creator to exist. The creator itself serves as an example of that fact.

---

Life being formed by an intelligent being makes far more since to me.

Excellent! Just carry that thought one step further and ascertain HOW that intelligent being (who is alive) came to BE alive, if life can only be formed by another intelligent being?

You'll have an infinite regression of other intelligent beings, or...

At some point you will be forced to realize that the original being got that way by some OTHER means. Ah... but since there is no other intelligent life... what OTHER means are available?

Now look at Nature. The natural laws of the universe that sustains life for billions. See, god didn't create you or me with his hands and blow life into our lungs. We were conceived through our parents.

And they, through theirs, just like evolution shows. A slow prgression of minute change in life over time. We can see that; we can document that. We can predict, and change, and measure and witness that. Evidence.

We CANNOT witness an eternal invisible being creating each life, each species, with its hands.

So even if it's accidentally true.... it would still be dishonest to claim it, without verifiable evidence.

Now, again, does God require a Creator if mortal life required one? No, he doesn't. Because, just like energy and matter, he doesn't come from anywhere. He just simply is.

..does God require a Creator if mortal life required one? No,..

Does god require a creator at all? (Never mind the non sequitur "if...") T