Numeric Argument Against the Existence of God

[DeletedUser8396]

I'm not tossing it out. I am saying that it was true when it was written.
Things that predate humans are not relevant, as it would have no bearing on the instruction in the holy books.

If God stated that He does not change throughout all time, He is required to be truthful as He states He does not lie. Whether it was relevant since it was before us doesn't matter as He'd still need to adhere to the consistency He would later state as eternal truth.

 

[DeletedUser]

Going from undefined to defined does not constitute a change in and of itself.


When humans discover a new species, the animal in question is not changed. Our understanding is.
He can predate our logic and remain unchanged at the same time.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Going from undefined to defined does not constitute a change in and of itself.


When humans discover a new species, the animal in question is not changed. Our understanding is.
He can predate our logic and remain unchanged at the same time.

That would be a new species...entirely different scenario.

The understanding of Him being unchanging is irrelevant. The point is, He is eternally unchanging. If you care to debate that further, do it after some adequate research. Thus far you're trashing thousands of years of philosophical thought and just straight up common sense and interpretation.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thousands of years of philosophical thought would predate the Abrahamic texts by at least a few hundred years at minimum, so I can't see how that's particularly relevant, to be perfectly honest with you.

Going from undefined to defined does not constitute a change in and of itself.

Please, explicitly explain to me what is inherently wrong with that statement, and then separately, explicitly explain how whatever flaws you've found with it make it wrong to use it in this situation.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Thousands of years of philosophical thought would predate the Abrahamic texts by at least a few hundred years at minimum, so I can't see how that's particularly relevant, to be perfectly honest with you.



Please, explicitly explain to me what is inherently wrong with that statement, and then separately, explicitly explain how whatever flaws you've found with it make it wrong to use it in this situation.

Because being defined as opposed to defined is a difference. Not only this, but if we're assuming God does not need to be eternally consistent, I'm simply going to shatter the morality base of Christianity and disprove it in that route (which I have already partially done). Either way, if they accept your view of not being eternally consistent (which literally no Biblical Scholar will even entertain), it ends up that their morality base is fundamentally flawed as there's no eternal, definite measure of perfection or goodness and thus is arbitrary which would make Christianity nigh pointless.

But, back to your view in and of itself:

It's simply wrong. By stating that He does not lie, anything stated must be true or He is a liar (which I will then proceed to disprove it that way). Since He states that He is the same yesterday, today and forever (implying eternity past and future), then it is either true and He is eternally consistent and unchanging or it is false and therefore we can't trust anything stated and the religion falls apart.

 

[DeletedUser]

Because being defined as opposed to defined is a difference.

A difference in the definition of the thing, not the thing.

When gravity was theorized, it did not change how the world functioned.
Similarly, when a god defined numerical logic, it would not have changed the god.

Not only this, but if we're assuming God does not need to be eternally consistent, I'm simply going to shatter the morality base of Christianity and disprove it in that route (which I have already partially done). Either way, if they accept your view of not being eternally consistent (which literally no Biblical Scholar will even entertain), it ends up that their morality base is fundamentally flawed as there's no eternal, definite measure of perfection or goodness and thus is arbitrary which would make Christianity nigh pointless.

And I'm trying to get you to see that he can be eternally consistent and predate the logic.

But, back to your view in and of itself:

It's simply wrong. By stating that He does not lie, anything stated must be true or He is a liar (which I will then proceed to disprove it that way). Since He states that He is the same yesterday, today and forever (implying eternity past and future), then it is either true and He is eternally consistent and unchanging or it is false and therefore we can't trust anything stated and the religion falls apart.

Again, I'm not saying that he has changed or that he has lied. The rules governing logic changed, not him.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

A difference in the definition of the thing, not the thing.

When gravity was theorized, it did not change how the world functioned.
Similarly, when a god defined numerical logic, it would not have changed the god.


And I'm trying to get you to see that he can be eternally consistent and predate the logic.


Again, I'm not saying that he has changed or that he has lied. The rules governing logic changed, not him.

You're beginning to not make any sense. He must be eternally singular as He defined Himself as singular and eternally unchanging. Which then means that He was eternally one and eternally defined as one, meaning the parameters I am discussing were and are concurrent with or preceding Him. There's nothing to change and He cannot change them without defying His nature, which He cannot do.

 

[DeletedUser]

He never changed.

The idea of singular did.
It's that simple.

It doesn't matter that he predates that idea, it doesn't change him.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

He never changed.

The idea of singular did.
It's that simple.

It doesn't matter that he predates that idea, it doesn't change him.

The idea of singular cannot change. And, even if it did, it can only be changed semantically. And, even if it was fundamentally changed, that means He fundamentally changed. It really isnt that complex.

 

[DeletedUser]

That would be a new species...entirely different scenario.

The understanding of Him being unchanging is irrelevant. The point is, He is eternally unchanging. If you care to debate that further, do it after some adequate research. Thus far you're trashing thousands of years of philosophical thought and just straight up common sense and interpretation.

Your moderation of this thread is atrocious. I don't think that this thread is anything more than attempt by you to peddle your second hand views and feed your own ego.... meanwhile caesar is experiencing his own little phone wars:

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Your moderation of this thread is atrocious. I don't think that this thread is anything more than attempt by you to peddle your second hand views and feed your own ego.... meanwhile caesar is experiencing his phone wars:

[/img]

There ya go, being the only hostile one.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you for the neg reps.

02.06.15 14:26
Thread: Numeric Argument Against the Existence of God
Seriously why are you even in this section? -CoD
02.06.15 14:00
Thread: Numeric Argument Against the Existence of God
Go grow up, please. -peb

Stop trying to score points a pebble. The way you have moderated this thread and consistently belittled those who have held views contrary to your own is appalling.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Continue being off topic and post deletions will come as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

The Harperic Argument Against the Existence of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5uVB7sdiuU

 

[DeletedUser40768]

What of the Book of Genesis Part 1 which purports that the Earth was formed before the Sun ie God made the earth on Day 2 and the Sun Moon and the Stars on Day 4. Aside from bio-mechanical problems, this flatly contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, in which planets form in the accretion disk created by a young star.

This flatly contradicts scientific hypotheses on planet formation where planets are created by a young star ( or in a more recent theory by the debris of asteroids orbiting around the Star). Simply put - it is erroneous to hold that earth was created before the Sun.

Now - If that error is to be accepted then you have to ask why was it asserted in the very first book of the bible...

Umm these things were written back when people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and not the other way around. So using the knowledge they had that would be a perfectly logical sequence. Though if you are using the Bible as a science book or as a history book then there is something wrong right now Archon

Ooh a video denying God's existence, can't wait to watch it lol

Edit: Watched it and what a waste of 5 minutes that was It wasn't an argument, all he said was the God was dead and that it is all a lie. Oh and he blamed Christians for his problems lol What is he arguing about, all he did was show that the only lyrics he can come up with is by attempting to mock religion?

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Umm these things were written back when people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and not the other way around. So using the knowledge they had that would be a perfectly logical sequence. Though if you are using the Bible as a science book or as a history book then there is something wrong right now Archon

Ooh a video denying God's existence, can't wait to watch it lol

Edit: Watched it and what a waste of 5 minutes that was It wasn't an argument, all he said was the God was dead and that it is all a lie. Oh and he blamed Christians for his problems lol What is he arguing about, all he did was show that the only lyrics he can come up with is by attempting to mock religion?

Seems all he could conjure was mockery as well, it seems.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ahhhh great debate guys, pebbles i really hope you continue these, they really do fascinate me and are pretty much the only reason i still occasionally check in. Ive got a bit of a theory in my mind, gonna sleep on it though and post up I think im close though.......

Edit : Stuff it, im gonna give it a go now.

Firstly - The question really reminds me of the argument of whether "good" is created by God, or whether it supersedes God. (EG : Is a higher moral law than God) Kinda off topic though, so i wont go into detail. Its another very interesting question though


Before genesis 1:1, before God created anything, the only thing that existed was God. Himself. He wasn't defined by any numerical law because there was nothing else in existence to compare him to. Let me try and explain, and see if i make sense.

If you have a box with hypothetically absolutely nothing in it. Absolutely nothing. No air, no single atoms at all. Do you say the box contains a single nothingness?? No. You say the box is empty. Not singly empty, or dual empty. Same with God. When there was nothing but God, he didn't have to be defined. He simply was. I cant really find any ways to explain this any better, i hope you get what im meaning?

So that begs the question when was God defined?

Well i would say he was defined as singular as soon as he created the heavens and the earth in genesis 1:1. There is now something else in the box to measure against. Or even if there hypothetically was another God, it would then have to be defined. But by believing in a single eternal God, i think its safe to say he wasn't defined until something else existed.


Idk if im on the right track or not, its a really difficult question I probably should have slept on it

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm these things were written back when people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and not the other way around. So using the knowledge they had that would be a perfectly logical sequence. Though if you are using the Bible as a science book or as a history book then there is something wrong right now Archon

Ooh a video denying God's existence, can't wait to watch it lol

Edit: Watched it and what a waste of 5 minutes that was It wasn't an argument, all he said was the God was dead and that it is all a lie. Oh and he blamed Christians for his problems lol What is he arguing about, all he did was show that the only lyrics he can come up with is by attempting to mock religion?

Can't really accept your counter argument Joe. The Book of Genesis and the doctrine of creation contained within it was for many centuries canon law and "The" authority for the creation of Earth, the universe and humanity itself. Down through the ages people were excommunicated; executed and burnt for daring to question the obvious errors that it contained. It is also the prime christian authority for the existence of God. I do not accept that you can defend Gods existence on the one hand but excuse any obvious errors in the explanation of the creation of the solar system on the other.

...not unless you accept that they got both wrong.

As for the Roy Harper ditty. Sorry you didn't like it. I did then and I still do now.

 

[DeletedUser40768]

Can't really accept your counter argument Joe. The Book of Genesis and the doctrine of creation contained within it was for many centuries canon law and "The" authority for the creation of Earth, the universe and humanity itself. Down through the ages people were excommunicated; executed and burnt for daring to question the obvious errors that it contained. It is also the prime christian authority for the existence of God. I do not accept that you can defend Gods existence on the one hand but excuse any obvious errors in the explanation of the creation of the solar system on the other.

...not unless you accept that they got both wrong.

As for the Roy Harper ditty. Sorry you didn't like it. I did then and I still do now.

You can't read everything in the bible literally, no one who believes in it does. If we wanted to take it literally, then who came up with the concepts of days while God was creating everything? Who was there to say that the events happened in that order and not all at once? The only real lesson to learn from the story of creation is that God created everything and made humans different than any other animal that he made.

Yeah sure they did some wrong things trying to enforce the bible, especially since now most religions support science and say they don't contradict but rather strengthen the fact that god does exist. Then again if we want to be like that then it is not only Christians. Jews had Jesus killed for his beliefs, and Romans demanded that everyone pay tribute to their gods.

Also that story is not the "prime christian authority for the existence of God", the bible in its entirety would be.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Ahhhh great debate guys, pebbles i really hope you continue these, they really do fascinate me and are pretty much the only reason i still occasionally check in. Ive got a bit of a theory in my mind, gonna sleep on it though and post up I think im close though.......

Edit : Stuff it, im gonna give it a go now.

Firstly - The question really reminds me of the argument of whether "good" is created by God, or whether it supersedes God. (EG : Is a higher moral law than God) Kinda off topic though, so i wont go into detail. Its another very interesting question though


Before genesis 1:1, before God created anything, the only thing that existed was God. Himself. He wasn't defined by any numerical law because there was nothing else in existence to compare him to. Let me try and explain, and see if i make sense.

If you have a box with hypothetically absolutely nothing in it. Absolutely nothing. No air, no single atoms at all. Do you say the box contains a single nothingness?? No. You say the box is empty. Not singly empty, or dual empty. Same with God. When there was nothing but God, he didn't have to be defined. He simply was. I cant really find any ways to explain this any better, i hope you get what im meaning?

So that begs the question when was God defined?

Well i would say he was defined as singular as soon as he created the heavens and the earth in genesis 1:1. There is now something else in the box to measure against. Or even if there hypothetically was another God, it would then have to be defined. But by believing in a single eternal God, i think its safe to say he wasn't defined until something else existed.


Idk if im on the right track or not, its a really difficult question I probably should have slept on it

Frankly if you read through this thread that argument has been made and disproven multiple times