Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 08-16-2002, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
The bible asserts that Adam was the son of God.

The bible also asserts that Eve was tempted by a talking snake. Why then do so many Christians believe that she was tempted by Satan?

Mike · 08-16-2002, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Mr. Darwin wrote:

The bible also asserts that Eve was tempted by a talking snake. Why then do so many Christians believe that she was tempted by Satan?

Genesis 3:14-15: And the Lord God said unto the serpent...I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed (Christ); it (He) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Romans 16:20: And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

ex-preacher · 08-16-2002, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:


I knew a REAL ex-preacher would figure it out. It's called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and oddly is often considered non-christian by much of the rest of Christianity, although it bore the name of Christ before any modern church. Yes. Before the Church of Christ was called the Church of Christ, my church was founded. Back then there were mainly Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherins, Methodists, etc. No one even yet claimed in their title to be Christ's church, although they claimed to follow him (and many, I believe, were and are doing their best).

You need to brush up on your American church history. There were many individual groups that called themselves "Church of Christ" before Joseph Smith was born. Much of Smith's theology appears to be stolen directly from the C of C. Indeed one of his key disciples, Sidney Rigdon, as well as innumerable lesser followers were castaways from the C of C.

Your being a Mormon does explain your reluctance to provide any actual evidence for your claims.

Quote:

It's been nice corresponding with you, ex-preacher. If you really want to find God, let me know.

Is this goodbye? Say it ain't so! Listen, Mike, if you have any actual evidence for anything please share it with us. I am very dubious of your claims, but I try to keep an open mind.

Edited to add:

Otherwise, your time would be better spent in the usual sources of Mormon growth: the uneducated and poor Christians of 3rd World countries.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: ex-preacher ]

Autonemesis · 08-16-2002, 11:17 AM

Mike: in what year did you take your endowments?

Thomas Metcalf · 08-16-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
Greetings all,

I apologize for not responding earlier to the thread I started. I see it has devolved to the usual proof of God concept. The original intent of the thread was to underscore there is little evidence for naturalistic explanations at least as far as big ticket items are concerned. At best this provides the possibility that a sentient creator is a possible solution to some of the irretractable problems of our origins and existence. The bottom line is if naturalists, materialists and atheists are really interested in divesting the rest of the world in their belief in God they are going to have to skinny up with evidence that non-god explanations are as good or better. When asked to defend their claims as they so often ask theists to do they seem to have less to offer than the theist do. Many of the respondents humorously invoked naturalism of the gaps as well as offering assertions as evidence. Things any theist would be flamed for offering as evidence of God. My conclusion is that naturalism as promoted by the Sec Web is a wishful belief statement and nothing more. It is surprising how few members of this board are willing to support or defend the home page mission statement. It seems clear to me the founding fathers of the Sec Web intended to defend and promote their worldview. Yet so many respondents naively state it is theists who are making a claim. Of course theists do make claims on their boards and websites and as expected defend such. On this board the home crowd expects visitors to defend their point of view while they attack.

Atheists are not required to offer any explanation whatsoever, just to show that theistic explanations fail. And they do, completely.

Naturalists have some explanation for the events we observe, and that's better than the supernaturalists have. As for a defense of naturalism, you obviously haven't familiarized yourself with the II articles the way this forum asks you to do.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/index.shtml</A>

Thomas Metcalf · 08-16-2002, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

You said omnipotent means having all power. I guess the key word is "all." A power that is not possible is not a power at all--it cannot exist as a power if it is impossible--and therefore the statements "all power" and "all possible power" are synonymous.

Same with all knowing, and all present. A presence that is not possible is not a presence at all, and therefore "all present" and "all possible presence" are synonymous.

I'm wondering what you take "omnipotent" and "omniscient" to mean, really. As the two terms are usually used, they contradict each other, because God can neither learn nor delude Himself. Both of these are logically possible actions, but it is beyond God's power to perform them.

Keith Russell · 08-16-2002, 12:29 PM

Mike said:
Keith,
When I said infinite, I meant infinite in duration.

Keith: Okayfine. We're talking semantics. You say 'infinite in duration'; I say eternal. Now we know what each other means.

Mike: Matter and energy may be finite in quantity, but they are infinite in duration. We are beings of matter and energy. Thus, indisputably infinite in duration.

Keith: Not at all. The energy of which we are currently formed is 'infinite in duration' (eternal). But, we, the forms of this energy, are finite. Our structures change, and will eventaully change enough that 'we' will no longer exist. The energy that currently forms us will take on other forms, and our forms will cease to exist.

Mike: You said omnipotent means having all power. I guess the key word is "all." A power that is not possible is not a power at all--it cannot exist as a power if it is impossible--and therefore the statements "all power" and "all possible power" are synonymous.

Keith: It works either way. If God has all possible power, then there can be no power apart from God. Everything that exists has at least that much power, thus if God is omnipotent (by your definition) then nothing exists apart from God. Yet, 'hell' is supposed to be exactly this kind of existence--an eternity of existence apart from God.

Mike: Same with all knowing, and all present. A presence that is not possible is not a presence at all, and therefore "all present" and "all possible presence" are synonymous.

The sun may be of finite duration in its form as the sun, but the energy of the sun is of infinite duration as energy cannot be destroyed. The light of the sun will continue its course across the universe long after the sun itself has "burnt out." We currently are observing the stars as they were billions of years ago. Both the energy, and the light of the sun could conceivably continue to travel for an infinite duration throughout the universe whether the sun remains in its current state or not.

Come on man, you know this stuff too.

Keith: Mike, yea I know it, I just cannot find the part of it that is supposed to explain God, or justify a belief in God, or persuade me to adopt such a belief. The above points we've been arguing seem very logical (and naturalistic)
to me--the eternal nature of energy esepcially.

I mean, if you accept that energy is eternal, and that matter is just a form of energy, and nothing exists but matter and energy, and they exist uncreated--what purpose does your belief in God serve?

I see no need to posit a God, in order to understand--or know--the above, to which we've both agreed.

Keith.

Mike · 08-16-2002, 12:30 PM

1988 (yeah I know where you're heading with that).

I'm heading for a camping trip, maybe I'll talk to you tomorrow.

In 1830 I don't think the C of C was yet called the C of C.

I'll see what I can gather in the way of evidence for both God and Mormonism, its there--I just need to get references for you skeptics--(it usually comes in the form of fulfilled prophecy). But like I said, you'll just laugh at my moon rocks until you've been to the moon yourself

ybnormal · 08-16-2002, 12:39 PM

Andrew_theist: (today)
The bottom line is if naturalists, materialists and atheists are really interested in divesting the rest of the world in their belief in God they are going to

have to skinny up with evidence that non-god explanations are as good or better.

Thomas Metcalf:
As for a defense of naturalism, you obviously haven't familiarized yourself with the II articles the way this forum asks you to do.

Andrewm: (11 months ago)

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000238&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000238&p=</a>

I created a website/discussion board titled Challenging Atheism.

...the failure to believe there is a God is nothing more than... competing belief system.

I welcome those to my board who claim they have evidence or proof there is no god.

I can personally testify that Andrew has been told a godzillion times that the onus is on him...

I'm afraid that you're talking to a guy, who about 2 years ago, on another board, told me that a baby could never take its first step, without that baby having personal "faith".

That was enough for me...

Devilnaut · 08-16-2002, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:

I'm wondering what you take "omnipotent" and "omniscient" to mean, really. As the two terms are usually used, they contradict each other, because God can neither learn nor delude Himself. Both of these are logically possible actions, but it is beyond God's power to perform them.

Why do you need omniscience to contradict with omnipotence? If God was "merely" omnipotent, what's to stop him from simply conjuring up all the knowledge in the world for himself, and making himself omniscient as well?

I would make a much simpler objection to the attribute of omnipotence, and that is: why would an omnipotent being ever do or want anything? Wouldn't all of his wants and desires be taken care of before they even occured to him?

I would think he would simply make himself omniscient, and then stay in a state of perfect ecstasy for all eternity.

If he wanted some 'friends' or followers, as theists believe his reason was for creating humanity, why not just conjure up an infinite number of them, give them omnipotence too, and then they could all be omniscient and in a state of perfect ecstasy together for all eternity?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the very concept of omnipotence is preposterous. I would've thought that theists would've abandoned it by now.

devilnaut

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-16-2002, 11:17 AM	#124
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Mike: in what year did you take your endowments?

08-16-2002, 12:29 PM	#127
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Mike said: Keith, When I said infinite, I meant infinite in duration. Keith: Okayfine. We're talking semantics. You say 'infinite in duration'; I say eternal. Now we know what each other means. Mike: Matter and energy may be finite in quantity, but they are infinite in duration. We are beings of matter and energy. Thus, indisputably infinite in duration. Keith: Not at all. The energy of which we are currently formed is 'infinite in duration' (eternal). But, we, the forms of this energy, are finite. Our structures change, and will eventaully change enough that 'we' will no longer exist. The energy that currently forms us will take on other forms, and our forms will cease to exist. Mike: You said omnipotent means having all power. I guess the key word is "all." A power that is not possible is not a power at all--it cannot exist as a power if it is impossible--and therefore the statements "all power" and "all possible power" are synonymous. Keith: It works either way. If God has all possible power, then there can be no power apart from God. Everything that exists has at least that much power, thus if God is omnipotent (by your definition) then nothing exists apart from God. Yet, 'hell' is supposed to be exactly this kind of existence--an eternity of existence apart from God. Mike: Same with all knowing, and all present. A presence that is not possible is not a presence at all, and therefore "all present" and "all possible presence" are synonymous. The sun may be of finite duration in its form as the sun, but the energy of the sun is of infinite duration as energy cannot be destroyed. The light of the sun will continue its course across the universe long after the sun itself has "burnt out." We currently are observing the stars as they were billions of years ago. Both the energy, and the light of the sun could conceivably continue to travel for an infinite duration throughout the universe whether the sun remains in its current state or not. Come on man, you know this stuff too. Keith: Mike, yea I know it, I just cannot find the part of it that is supposed to explain God, or justify a belief in God, or persuade me to adopt such a belief. The above points we've been arguing seem very logical (and naturalistic) to me--the eternal nature of energy esepcially. I mean, if you accept that energy is eternal, and that matter is just a form of energy, and nothing exists but matter and energy, and they exist uncreated--what purpose does your belief in God serve? I see no need to posit a God, in order to understand--or know--the above, to which we've both agreed. Keith.

08-16-2002, 12:30 PM	#128
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	1988 (yeah I know where you're heading with that). I'm heading for a camping trip, maybe I'll talk to you tomorrow. In 1830 I don't think the C of C was yet called the C of C. I'll see what I can gather in the way of evidence for both God and Mormonism, its there--I just need to get references for you skeptics--(it usually comes in the form of fulfilled prophecy). But like I said, you'll just laugh at my moon rocks until you've been to the moon yourself

08-16-2002, 12:39 PM	#129
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	Andrew_theist: (today) The bottom line is if naturalists, materialists and atheists are really interested in divesting the rest of the world in their belief in God they are going to have to skinny up with evidence that non-god explanations are as good or better. Thomas Metcalf: As for a defense of naturalism, you obviously haven't familiarized yourself with the II articles the way this forum asks you to do. Andrewm: (11 months ago) <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000238&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000238&p=</a> I created a website/discussion board titled Challenging Atheism. ...the failure to believe there is a God is nothing more than... competing belief system. I welcome those to my board who claim they have evidence or proof there is no god. I can personally testify that Andrew has been told a godzillion times that the onus is on him... I'm afraid that you're talking to a guy, who about 2 years ago, on another board, told me that a baby could never take its first step, without that baby having personal "faith". That was enough for me...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.