Well if God IS omnipotent he is capable of being flawed and defying a logical paradox so youve proved nothing
I don't think anyone gets what I'm trying to say. Omnipotence doesn't have to make sense, it's the biggest cop out ever... so as long as you're debating god, someone can just fall back on omnipotence... it doesn't have to follow logic, which is what you all are trying to make it do. I'm not saying it's fair or logical... I'm just saying debating that an omnipotent being isn't logical is like competing in the special olympics... in the end, everyone's still a retard.
First you would rather believe something that does not follow logic, rather than being skeptic about a gods existence? The second something becomes illogical you should just dump it. P.S.- That remark about retards has no place here...plus it is wayyy over used.
I didn't mean beliefs are unnecessary, I said the wars were. I worded it ambiguously now that I read it. :S Wait... RELIGION IS IN NO WAY PERSONAL?! Everyone has their own beliefs, even inside their own religions. I would classify that as "personalized". All that we believe is based on personal thought and our life circumstances. No two people believe the same exact thing. I'll have you know that I was a devout Catholic before I came to this site. My opinion is that people who are deeply involved in a religion are the ones who need to open their eyes. Assumptions are dangerous. Still... "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire
I never said I believe anything towards or against gods existence... read more carefully, I also called omnipotence 'the biggest cop out,' if you read correctly... And even though it's wayyy (three 'y's') overused, it still seems to fit in this circumstance... and still sum up my point in a jackassish way.
Isn't that just special pleading? Everything in the universe has some form of logic to it BUT this one point. Omnipotence no matter how illogical can not break gods omniscient. If it did he wouldn't be omniscient. Even so most Christians would admit god can not sin or do this that and the other thing because its not in gods character. So he's not omnipotent from a religious standpoint. You'd have to be a nonreligious believer to say that god can do literally anything but they shouldn't care about the properties of god seeing as they can't prove a one of them which is also the reason why their agnostic in the first place!
Wait, I didn't know we suddenly were able to add specifications to make our points more valid... (in reference to the 'christian' god point.) Most of what you just claimed is christian-based... if we're going to be debating god, we shouldn't solely look at him/her through the eyes of christianity... we already know how ****ed up they are. I again can just claim omnipotency, *****... it doesn't make sense, I know... are you getting it yet? The point I'm trying to make?
Um, no? You seem to have missed the point, to claim you know the properties of god is foolish. Religion tends to justify it with texts but an agnostic has no texts. He only says there must be a god cause, "blah blah blah." He can't make any assertions on the characteristics of god without accepting that he doesn't know. They can be very good and well backed up assertions but they still don't mean that that is what god is like. Same goes for the religious but they justify it with print. An agnostic says to you, "god is omnipotent." Ask how they know and they'll tell you straight up they don't, they just assume. That was the point I was trying to get across. No I don't because you seem to think logic is prescriptive and its not its descriptive. Logic just doesn't inherently exist, it isn't a truth of the cosmos. Just like physics is descriptive not prescriptive. The universe isn't doing all sorts of math to make an apple fall, though we can describe it in numbers. Likewise god wouldn't do something based on logic though we could describe it logically.
Isn't calling any sort of God or creator omnipotent just a cop-out for the things we can't yet explain? It's so easy to say "God can do anything and has limitless power." It just doesn't make any sense. Besides, religion isn't beneficial. The worst things in history, and in the present world, are justified by religion. Which I'm sure has been mentioned before, but I don't care enough to read the rest of the thread. Furthermore, with Christians, there's always that ulterior motive that they've simply "being good people" to get into Heaven, and not simply to do good deeds. I'm sure that the motivation shouldn't matter-- but doesn't it?
That is absolutely not true. Religion has been immensely beneficial to the development of mankind for many millennia and still plays a very important, albeit diminishing, role in society. Sure there have been atrocities committed in the name of religion, but religion isn't inherently violent. It's the twisted visions of a few that tarnish the whole. You can't simply lump all religions into one category and claim insignificance because of the actions/beliefs/etc of those who partake.
Name some of the "bad things" directly caused by non-extremist religion. Religion has been a crutch for society for many, many years and was one of the earliest promoters of free thinking. If it weren't for religion, the likes of Gregor Mendel would never have existed. Religion played a major role in supporting early scientific endeavors even though it eventually came to limit such research. Religion has provided a basis for the morals of society and taught simple beliefs applicable in any life. While it may be losing relevance in today's society, it has played an important role in the development of the human race into what it is today. To quote someone from over on the MLG forums...
I absolutely agree with that statement. ^^^ Religion isn't responsible for terrible acts of hate. It's people that interpret religion in a wrong way that cause these hate crimes. Their corrupt way of thinking is what's wrong. @ RabidZergling: Your avatar is very inappropriate. You can't just flash those kind of messages around a forum. I recommend you try adding a link to it in your signature if anything.
Even if your specific religion is not responsible for any atrocities, as the vast majority are not, it still preaches the same virtue that the evil ones do. They call it faith. Faith that the word of God is infallible, that whoever leads your sect is a good source of information on this God, that God wishes you to do things. But every faith preaches that obedience to their god is a virtue, no matter what is asked. Just look to the story of Abraham and Isaac from the old testament to see what extent the Abrahamic religions expect your loyalty. Abraham was willing to murder his own son because it was commanded by God. Those who commit evil acts in the name of their faith are being taught that faith and obedience are good. They do what they are told because they believe that it comes from their god. This is the result of a child being raised with a religious mindset, and never abandoning it as he grows up. Nobody kills themselves or other people unless they believe that it is a good thing to do, and the reason they believe that is good is because they have that religious mindset. They think it was God's will, and they want to be more like Abraham. I'm not saying that every religious person would strap a bomb to their chest if they were asked to by the leader of their faith, I'm saying that that is what religion teaches you should be willing to do. I know that most religions try to do good things, and for that they deserve some credit. The people who are unwilling to commit atrocities in the name of their God are the ones that behave rationally despite, not because of, their faith. Religious charities in the United States far outweigh secular ones, and this proves that religious people are very willing to do good things for their god. But at the same time, horrible acts like suicide bombing or preventing condoms from being used in Africa are products of religious thinking too. Religion is a strong motivator for action of any kind and not only good things, nor only bad things. So don't argue the positive effects of religion while downplaying the negative, religion does both. The part that makes religion dangerous is the fact that only religion can be used to justify evil.
Absolutely. I said religion wasn't inherently evil/bad. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily correct. Faith is a dangerous thing because people allow their entire minds and lives to be controlled under the pretense of salvation (or whatever). Religious leaders maintain a disturbing amount of control and influence over the people they oversee and it is typically the few corrupt leaders that have caused the violence for which religion has been blamed. Despite this, I still feel that religion as a whole was beneficial in the development of mankind for much of its past. It was important in keeping people in check and allowing civilization to flourish. Those times are gone now and humanity needs to take the next step in its development by those abandoning thousand year old myths.
People will keep "in check" without mysticism. What is true in the past is true today, human nature hasn't changed. Japan is not on fire right now, it is (...was [damn global recession]) prospering. If anything religion took morality from mankind and claimed it for themselves and I'm not willing to say that religion keeps people in check more than human nature itself. Left to themselves, evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things but it takes a religion to make a good person do wicked things. Adding the fear of god to an evil person will not make him good anymore than adding the fear of god will make a schizophrenic normal again. Hell, Hitler was Roman Catholic and Stalin was an atheist. Either worldview doesn't seem to restrain evil but one seems to have the ability to promote it better than others. I don't believe that someone believes it is moral to blow themselves up outside an orphanage. I believe it takes religion to corrupt a man far enough to believe the death of the innocent will allow him to fulfill his sexual fantasies in a heaven. I don't believe that modern science would not have emerged were it not for religion. Were there no religion the timeline would have been different but that doesn't change the fact that it probably still would have happened.
Religion didn't cause the flourishing. Gregor Mendel didn't experiment because of his religion- he experimented and just happened to have a religion. I don't think religion has ever really played a major role in any kind of scientific development. You can argue that it definitely has some directly linked positive effects (architecture, paintings, etc.), but most of these positive effects would have eventually come along anyways. Religion didn't teach morals. Morals existed before religion did, religion just took the morals we already had (common sense) and wrote them down.
what your asking is to prove the theory of god but it is still only a theory when there is proof it will be law befor scientists saw the electron they had faith that it was there
1). We've never seen an electron, it is impossible to see an electron. 2). A theory with evidence or facts behind it is not a law, it is a theory. The definition of theory is a collection of facts and evidences. 3). Laws bear much much less weight than theory.