Jobar

davidstewart, you seem a pleasant enough chap, so I'm going to give you a little speech I have given to other theists in the past.

I have told this to other Christians who have come here- I want to give you fair and plain warning. Your faith is at risk here.

Oh, I am sure you will scoff at me when I say this, maybe even get very angry and self-righteous. But if you remain here, and actually listen to us instead of simply trying to preach to us, you may, suddenly or slowly, find your faith, which you think to be solid rock, shattering beneath your feet like rotten ice.

We are worshipers of truth here. Note I do not capitalize it and call it Truth; that would imply that I consider it to be something established and absolute, unchangeable and unquestionable. No. The truth we seek is always open to new questions! We worship an admittedly approximate, but constantly improving, vision. We welcome new questions fully as much as we revere new answers.

We consider the Bible- the Truth you consider so unquestionable- to be, at the very best, a version of truth grown stale, and petrified, and proven untruthful long long ago. We can demonstrate it- with vast numbers of things undreamt of in your theology. Bones. Telescopes. Photographs. Medicines. Computers! Philosophies and ideas so far beyond the tiny tinkertoy universe described by your precious holy book that even the wisest on the Earth at that time could not understand, which even elementary school students of today can explain!

If you would keep your faith, and continue to believe your world is flat, and less than ten thousand years old- flee. Now. We will not pursue you.

But if you come here and ask, we will try to teach you of these truths we are sure of, and we will also tell you of the things we are *not* sure of. We will try to correct your ignorance, as gently as we (in our individual, harried, and humanly fallible ways) are able.

We will try to tell you the truth.

We have had many theists who came here to show us that God is the best logical explanation for the universe we see around us; some considerable number of them are now atheists, and I know of only one atheist here who stated she is going back to her original Catholicism.

David, you are welcome to post here as much as you like, but be aware that freedom may have an unexpected cost.

tommyc

Damn.

Clutch

Hey, don't underestimate the power of collapsing gas. I've had first-hand experience of gas that made everyone collapse. It can be an ugly customer.

Mageth

Well let me put this simply to you. I have never seen an aeroplane collide with a space ship, but common sense tells me they would both explode. Now that is not based on 'experiential evidence,...

Sure it is. You have "experiential evidence" that two objects containing fuel colliding at high speed will most likely explode, don't you? If you were an aborigine in the bush with no experience of rocket or jet fuel or the high-speed collision of two objects containing such, and you saw two objects in the sky about to collide, I doubt if you would think "I'm about to see a really big explosion."

Your original statement was "Common sense tells us that if one world exists inside another world, and the former world ends, whatever was in the former world is now in the latter world. "

We have no experiential evidence of worlds existing inside worlds in the sense you mean, only conjecture, so "common sense" doesn't apply; it's merely conjecture.

...in the same way I used the example of the two balloons to prove my belief that once you die you are left in the outer world. If you want to go and try and balloon experiment you are welcome to do so.

Balloons aren't universes. Saying one universe exists inside another is conjecture, not "common sense" that can be tested with a couple of balloons.

Well let's look at it. Who would make a world that would go totally haywire immediately; yes, there are tests in life but without the help of God nothing would be possible. I would not be at this computer, in fact civilisation would not exist. Put a herd of cows and bulls into 5,000 acres of ideal land and come back 5,000 years later, what do you have? A civilisation of cows in cars and on motorbikes, with briefcases? No just a field of cows and bulls. That's because God's plan is for humans to do these sort of things, not any other creature.

You have no idea of what such a creator, if one existed, might do. For all you know the creator may have created multiple universes where there are no sentient beings, perhaps no life at all. Again, your statement is not "logical," it's conjecture.

(BTW, cows do have "some way of knowing what is going on in the world that was created", don't they?)

I really want to know what you think yourself, about the existence of God, and I welcome any questions you have. However when it comes to 'Huh' I'm not sure what to expect from you next, perhaps you didn't understand, maybe you're expressing that it's a stupid line, or maybe you're only 9 years old, but 'Huh' doesn't tell me anything other than you've either got no beliefs of your own or that you don't think their worth showing.

According to your statement god created our universe, and made life in it "hard", as some kind of a test to qualify some of us to get into an enclosing "perfect" universe (which apparently he has "always" been in, and did nothing himself to earn his way there). Apparently those billions of us who fail god's little test go to some other place where we've "earned" or "chosen" eternal suffering. What kind of cruel, vindictive god would do that? Couldn't he have just skipped the test and created us fit for his universe in the first place? Why set up a system where most of the sentient beings he created and supposedly loves are going to end up in hell?

BTW, your statement "Life is so hard because God wants us to earn our way to his universe" seems to contradict something you say a little later:

There must therefore be a source for each; we have established that the source of good is God, and therefore the source of badness must be the opposite of God, which God calls Satan.

I would assume "life is so hard" mostly because of evil. If life's so hard because god had a purpose for it being hard, then surely evil exists because god wanted it to exist. So god is either the source of evil or the willing creator of a system in which he desires, and allows, evil. Take your pick. Either way doesn't look so good for god.

God can help people to see the light, he can try and draw someone closer to being a better person. So for example if a young lady is walking past a gang at night and and she prays, God can help these people to see that it wouldn't be beneficial to harm her in any way. This is not changing the processes of life because the action has not occured yet, but the gang can either choose to follow God or not, but the outcome will never be as bad as it would have been before.

Again, read the bible. It's full of stories where god took direct or indirect action to interfere with the "processes of life". Hell, according to Genesis, he created it, and then later drowned most of it. How much more direct can you get?

And , if you pray, and if god in any way takes action to interfere with the process to change an outcome (whether it be a whisper in the ear or a slap upside the head), god most certainly has interfered with the "processes of life". It doesn't matter one bit if "the action has not occured yet."

Something that is done is either good or bad, you see this every day, ...

The world can't be divided into two classes of things that are "good" and things that are "bad." Many things that are done are neither good nor bad, and some actions can be both good and bad, in varying ratios.

...they are constants, you can't get away from them, one thing is either one or the other. They are with us all the time, they are constants.

Well, "good" and "bad" aren't entities that follow you around, or that you run into on the street or buy at the mall. They're subjective judgments we place on things, actions, ideas, and people. What's good to/for you may be bad to/for me, and vice versa.

In order for the trials and tribulations of life to be created, there must be an opposite of good. God created this but he isn't forcing us to use it, on the contrary, he is trying to draw us away from it, even though the dark side is tempting us.

Whoa! But you earlier said "we have established that the source of good is God, and therefore the source of badness must be the opposite of God, which God calls Satan." But in the above statement you said "...there must be an opposite of good. God created this..." So did god create "bad" or not???

He made it because he wants us to resist it, if we only knew good then goodness would be worth nothing.

An unsupported assertion. Why would "goodness" be "worth nothing" if we knew only good?

God gets the full credit for creating a world where there is freedom of choice, if evil didn't exist then we would always be happy, ...

That's a bad thing?

...and as I said, if we have happiness all the time, what have we done to deserve it?

Why must we do anything to deserve happiness?

You said god's universe was "perfect". I'd assume that means there's no bad, no unhappiness there. What did god do to deserve that? And since he supposedly exists in such a happy place, did nothing to deserve it (I don't suppose you think god was subjected to some sort of "test" to qualify for his universe), and the place is "perfect", doesn't this mean that, in a perfect universe, "deserving" has no meaning, and is not needed to qualify for happiness? Or that happiness in god's universe is an illusion of some sort?

God doesn't want us to go to hell, but in order to have free choice there must be the choice of good or bad, and why should someone who is bad and refuses to ever believe in goodness, wind up at the source of goodness, if that happens then the tests of life mean nothing and good never triumphs over evil because evil ends up as good anyway.

Once again, god created the "system" in which there is good and bad, and in which he tests people to see if they "deserve" entry into his universe or a one-way ticket to hell. Therefore, god is responsible for us going to hell.

As you said earlier, "God gets the full credit for creating a world where there is freedom of choice." God also gets full credit for creating the consequences of that choice, therefore god is responsible (gets full credit for) people going to hell.

I am trying to explain to the 'Stevie Wonders of Faith' what I believe in. How can God laugh at that? If I've made mistakes then he'll help me see them, but the essence of it is that I believe in God.

Aah, I get it, you're a "Ray Charles of Reason." God gave us reason for a purpose, I would assume; if we sometimes don't use it, you don't think god is capable of chuckling at our bungling?

So it boils down to faith, of course. "Goddidit", so to speak. But througout your posts you've used things like "it is logical", "common sense tells us", etc. in reference to many statements which are statements of faith (or conjecture; take your pick). It would be beneficial to you to learn the difference.

P.S. I have noticed quite a few one liners as replies from other forum users, I will not be replying to those as it is obvious they didn't bother connecting their brain to their fingers for a while so that they could type up a relatively decent answer. Thank you.

Well, typing long responses on a Braille keyboard is not easy. Cut 'em some slack.

DMB

You have demonstrated the truth value of the first assertion but merely stated without proof the second.

Could prayer improve one's grammar and/or spelling?

DMB

I don't want to wade through davidstewarts whole mishmash, so I will just comment on his first point:

The logic of this completely escapes me. He refers to a "law" without making it clear which law that is. He seems to be suggesting that every earthly process is continuous and moreover that nothing is irreversible. Rocks are not, as far as we know, created from thin air, but they are "created" by geological processes that are on the whole well understood. That doesn't mean, however, that the processes that may have been responsible for the "creation" of particular rock formations are still operative today or can be called into play at will. Certain incidents may have been possible only at particular points in the earth's evolution. It doesn't require a higher power to have put a stop to them.

Hawkingfan

Not quite. There may be other possibilities for you. Please read what a Muslim once posted as feedback to the II Secular Web:

The Koran was revealed from ALLAH this is why so many scientific facts are contained in it's text.

Christians who worship Jesus as God (which is the vast majority of Christians) will be sent to Hell. The question is why are all these people sent to Hell?

"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the afterlife he will be among the lost." (Surat Aal Imraan 3:85)

"Those who reject faith and deny our signs will be companions of Hell-fire." (Al-maidah 5:10)

"They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of ALLAH, and (they take as their Lord) christ, the son of mary; yet they were commanded to worship but one god: there is no god but one god: there is no god but he. Praise and glory to Him: (far is he) from having the partners they associate(with him). (At-Touba 9:31)

They will go to hell for making false statements about ALLAH and disobeying the creator. Disbelief, associating partners, sons, gods...etc. with ALLAH is why most men\women will go to HELL.

As the Koran states; "Those who reject our signs,we shall soon cast into the fire; as often as their skins are roasted through, we shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for ALLAH is exalted in power, wise." (al-nisaa 4:56)

[If one's skin was changed over after being burnt, there would be no way to become used to the flames.]

PLEASE READ THE Koran AND BY ALLAH'S WILL BECOME ONE OF THE GUIDED.

beyelzu

hawkingfan,

great point about islam. why is it that when a christian comes to attack atheism they try to prove theism and then automatically assume that xianity is validated?

tommyc

LOL
Ha, I was going to stoop this low, but I decided to concede defeat instead.

tommyc

Oh yeah, and I also couldn't work out whether it was a grammar or spelling mistake either. I'd go for grammar myself. The problem with pointing out things like that (and the reason I don't do it), is because I then find myself having to paste everything into Word first to double check I'm not going to get stung myself.