That's right, the Bane of All Religion is back. Good day, everyone.

Quite a few people (including myself) have said many times that the Bible, Christianity, and pretty much any other religions are full of contradiction and nonsense. However, such complaints are typically dismissed as interpretation problems -- "if you were more enlightened, you would understand what it <u>really</u> means", or "well, you know how imperfect human scribes are; you can't take it literally."

Well, after a little hiatus from this board, I once again have a little free time to burn and a renewed sense of interest. And this time, you zealots aren't getting away with mere dismissal, either. Because I am talking about the most fundamental nonsense, the kind that defies all logic, the kind that is just purely paradoxical and self-contradictory, and at the center of your beliefs. I am going to mathematically disprove religion by the method of contradiction.

And I begin with the Christian God.


<u>1) Assumptions:</u>
a) God is omniscient, i.e. God knows about absolutely everything.
b) God is self-sufficient, i.e. God is defined exclusively in terms of God itself; God has an existence independent of anything else, and completely self-defined, and self-contained.

What is knowledge? One way to define it, is to say that knowledge is an encoding of information. Then consider God's knowledge as a vast database of encoded information. God knows about everything, which means that God's knowledge database contains information about everything.

Given assumption (1a), therefore, God's knowledge database contains, among other things, a complete encoding of itself; i.e. God knows everything about him/herself as well, including about his/her complete knowledge. Therefore, God's knowledge database, in addition to all information completely encoding everything that has existed and happened, is existent and happening, and will exist and happen -- also completely encodes itself.

But this is nonsensical!

To see why, assume that the database originally stores some information of total capacity D' > 0. To completely encode itself, the database would have to encode its very structure, including its input/output mechanisms, data representation formats, and the very information storage cells that will store the information (according to Assumption 1b). Because the database must, by Assumption 1b, encode the structure of its very storage medium, the total required capacity (call it C) depends on D' -- the larger D' is, the larger C must become to completely encode the entire storage medium. That means C can be written as a sum of capacities -- capacity needed to encode the database's structure (call it Ds), and capacity needed to encode the databases storage medium as well as the data stored on that medium (call it Dm). By definition, then, Dm > D', and C = Ds + Dm, and therefore C > Dm. However, C is now the total storage capacity of the database (formerly denoted as D') -- and to encode all of this information, we will need a capacity of Dm > C! But this cannot be, as C > Dm! We have a blatant contradiction here -- and this contradiction does not arise out of a flaw in the argument. It arises because at least one of the original premises (either 1a or 1b) is false!

To put this result into more layman's terms, God cannot know everything and cannot be self-sufficient -- because if that were not so, God would have to contain a complete description and definition of itself. But such a complete definition would also have to include its very own text, since it must by definition contain its own definition, which contains its own definition, which contains its own definition, and so on with no end, creating an infinite recursion. Therefore, God can never possess enough capacity to encode absolutely everything; not even an infinite capacity would suffice!

This, in fact, is a proven mathematical theorem fundamental to computation (it was not originally directed at God). It demonstrates, for example, that life cannot completely encode itself in order to procreate; a lot of information needed for existence of life must by necessity be implicit in the environment and behavior and configurations of matter, etc. That is to say, life is not self-sufficient; it is not defined in the absense of its environment. Similarly, God cannot exist simply and purely by itself; by necessity God must exist within an environment which is not part of God, but existed for at least as long as God did. Furthermore, God cannot contain a complete encoding of itself and its environment! That means, there is <u>something</u> of which God is not aware and could never become aware. Therefore, God cannot be omniscient; in fact, omniscience is mathematically impossible -- and no more possible is self-sufficiency.

In fact, omnisciency and self-sufficiency are intimately related, as both imply an ability for an object or a being to completely encode itself at every level -- which is a mathematical and logical impossibility.

Conclusions? <u>God is NOT omniscient. God is NOT self-sufficient.</u>

<u>2) Assumptions:</u>
a) God is all-powerful
b) God existed forever (time does not apply to God)

As demonstrated in 1), God is not omniscient, and therefore does not know about certain things. And if he doesn't know about them, he cannot control them. Bingo, God is not all-powerful.

As a more direct consequence of the assumptions in this section, consider the problem of God's death. Can God end its own existence? No! After all, by Assumption 2b, God had no origin. Therefore, time does not apply to God. Therefore, God has no end. Therefore, God cannot commit suicide! Therefore, God is not all-powerful. Incidentally, by premise 2b, God apparently cannot reproduce either (create other Gods) -- pretty pathetic for a being of its stature.

Once again, by contradiction, at least one of 2a or 2b must be false!

But if I had to pick only one of the two, I'd say that 2a is false. Because otherwise, we may imagine tasking God with the following problem -- create the largest universe that you could possibly create. If God cannot stand up to the challenge, he is already not all-powerful. However, if he does stand up to the challenge, we can then ask him to create a universe twice that size -- which he will be unable to do. Ergo, God cannot be all-powerful.

However, 2b poses its own set of problems:

* if God exists outside of time, then God cannot possibly do things in sequence (or even things which are individually identifiable and distinguishable from other actions), including things like creating a universe piece by piece -- or even conceiving of the universe in such a manner -- or even first conceiving of the universe, and then creating it; certainly, God could not even participate in the universe, since he does not participate in the flow of time; in fact God's existence would be undefined as such -- since any "existence" presupposes a flow of time to give that existence a context. Clearly, this option is not acceptable if we are to believe any Christian lore at all.

* if God does operate within a context of some divine time (i.e. time is part of the context that defines God) -- then an endless existence (coupled with permanent ignorance at some level) must have had surely driven God frighteningly mad infinitely long ago.

This has been rather brief, but I think I've shown quite convincingly that Christianity clashes with sound reason at many, very fundamental, levels.

Of course, some opponents will probably counter with something like: being the lowly stupid morons, we can't possibly understand God, and that's why logic does not apply to God. But to such replies, I offer my own: if you pronounce yourself stupid, inane, and incapable of carrying out a coherent discussion (yes, the kind based on logic) -- then you've got no business discussing anything at all! In fact, you must find the nearest cave as soon as possible, don some animal skins, pick up a stick or a boulder, and return to the true natural existence for which humans were originally "created". Civilization is definitely not for you.

<hr>

Now, let's look at the historical record of Christianity so far.

The Catholic church is the preeminent Christian institution (though, of course, not the only one) -- that is emblematic of the problems encountered with any sect. They continually and in full earnest claim direct communication with God (just like some people on this board we all know and love) -- in violation of principle 2b, by the way. Simultaneously, they have managed to transgress and err in the most egregious ways for centuries and centuries on end.

They extended their authority to the Inquisition and the witch hunts, they have blessed the Crusades, they have dabbled in politics more than the Devil himself ever could, and they have forcefully crushed opposition and criticism, even if only through a sheer moralistic assault when they were restricted from a more physical application.

Clearly, all the gore and depravity of the Bible aside, the so-called saints and servants of God were either lying through their teeth about their divine contact, or they indeed represented a God quite unlike its loving father/mother facade. Either way, hypocricy has piled up so tall over the many centuries, that it must certainly by now stink to high heaven, even if such a place doesn't exist. Given the enormous historical pile of reprehensible behavior masked by the best of intentions, why ought we trust the modern religious establishment about its sincerity or fidelity any more than we should trust the religious establishment of the Middle Ages?

I had been berated previously for excessively focusing on the traditional opposition to science on the part of the religious establishment. After all, so what if the anscient monks were too ignorant to realize that the blasphemous heretics might indeed be correct? Well, the big deal is that those very same clerics also defended their righteous cause with an ardor that can only be described as religious. They were in touch with God; they were His blessed children; they were the guardians and the builders of The Way; they could not have possibly erred with God at their side! In fact, "God said so, so shut up or you end in hell" became the standard response. God said so through "us", of course -- and it's entirely your fault that you are not close enough to God to see the falsity of your blasphemous ways. (remind anybody of some people on this board?) These days, it's not that the earth must be flat. It's just that evolution must be false. Big Bang must be a fraud. And of course, souls are as real as the Evil Abortionists, and you better believe it! God said so, personally, to me, yes, to ME! Well, all I've got to say to that is, "for shame."

Why do we unbelievers find contradictions where seemingly there be none? Well, perhaps it's the overwhelming lack of congruity in religion. Perhaps it's the ever-pervasive irrationality, the moral judgements that defy common sense, the calls for policy that is, to an unbeliever, meaningless if not harmful, the astonishing skill in neglecting the hordes of problems in an obstinate bid to maintain a mindset. These are the real contradictions, going far beyond the text of the Bible. The principle of separation between church and state, coexisting with a House chaplain, with "In God We Trust" on our coins, with swearing on the Bible in our courts, with God written into our very Constitution, and taking allegiance with a mention of God, with a push for religiously motivated blanket abortion policy (clearly oppressive to the unbelievers), religiously motivated institutional anti-Gay discrimination, pressure for prayer in public institutions including schools, trying to position the ridiculous "Creation Science" as a science (and even one worth teaching -- at an institution which is supposed to be impartial to all beliefs), a virtual requirement that the President be religious (or else not be elected) -- overwhelming hypocricy and pervasive inconsistency baffle an independent observer. A call to charity and community values, incredibly somehow married to a drive for slashing socialist agendas. Perfect willingness to use up the Earth as the God's imparted gift to mankind -- coupled with a sentiment that one should not "play God". Disparagement of greed, within a society built on it! All the while personally pushing and rooting for an egotistic, niggardly, penny-counting agenda, supposedly designed to boost an already booming economy, which is in danger of overheating as is! A cry for a return to the decrepit past, at the dawn of opportunity and change, of the most dramatic transformation in human civilization to ever take place. These are the contradictions, but a few among many too numerous to list.

Religion at its best, or worst. Brimming with hypocricy and twisted reasoning, an ever-productive source of embarassment and desperation to those who actually wish for a country based on principles rather than psychological and material convenience.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 16, 2000).]

Boris,

Nice to see ya back buddy!!! :D I sat out for a spell too. I havn't read your post yet. I'll get to it when I have more time. I'm just glad to know that you are still among the living. Now, all we have to do is get some real Life into you. ;)

Welcome Back,
ISDAMan

[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited January 16, 2000).]

Wow Boris,

That's a wild ride you have constructed here. If you don't mind, I'm gonna purchase another ticket and print it for later reading. I'm intrigued by your effort. Thank you.



------------------
It's all very large.

It's fairly simple. In order to prove that God does not know everything you must know more than God, Boris. You can't and you don't.

Christian,

Are you a member of the "back to the caves" movement, by any chance?

If you claim that in order to logically discuss God we must know more than God -- and therefore we cannot logically discuss God, then I must point out that a similar argument applies to any other subject. Ergo, either use what limited resources you have for a good purpose, or give it all up; for me, at least, the choice is quite rudimentary.

As for you: either find a flaw in my argument, or go pray.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Given 1) God is ominiscient.

Given 2) Boris is not omniscient.

Logical Conclusion: Boris cannot claim to know more than God.

The flaw in your argument is that you claim to understand "omniscience."

"Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Matthew 16:9-11)

I'm a member of the 'back to the caves' movement. But lets go back even further than the caves. Lets go back to a time before there were any caves. Lets go back around 473,040,000,000,000,000 seconds to the birth of our universe. Our universe came into existence. According to Christians it was created by God (and the Word might I add). Before there was a universe, or before there was a before, or before there was any logic or laws of physics there was God. Our universe is kind of like a medium through which God reveals Himself to us. This medium is limited. We do not see God from a Godly perspective. We see what was revealed to us.

Is God omniscient? Yes, God knows about absolutely everything in our universe. Remember, He created the universe. He is also outside it, whatever that means. Our universe has certain rules. Rules imposed by its Creator.

_________________________________
Given assumption (1a), therefore, God's knowledge database contains, among other things, a complete encoding of itself; i.e. God knows everything about him/herself as well, including about his/her complete knowledge. Therefore, God's knowledge database, in addition to all information completely encoding everything that has existed and happened, is existent and happening, and will exist and happen -- also completely encodes itself.

But this is nonsensical!

To see why, assume that the database originally stores some information of total capacity D' > 0. To completely encode itself, the database would have to encode its very structure, including its input/output mechanisms, data representation formats, and the very information storage cells that will store the information (according to Assumption 1b). Because the database must, by Assumption 1b, encode the structure of its very storage medium, the total required capacity (call it C) depends on D' -- the larger D' is, the larger C must become to completely encode the entire storage medium. That means C can be written as a sum of capacities -- capacity needed to encode the database's structure (call it Ds), and capacity needed to encode the databases storage medium as well as the data stored on that medium (call it Dm). By definition, then, Dm > D', and C = Ds + Dm, and therefore C > Dm. However, C is now the total storage capacity of the database (formerly denoted as D') -- and to encode all of this information, we will need a capacity of Dm > C! But this cannot be, as C > Dm! We have a blatant contradiction here -- and this contradiction does not arise out of a flaw in the argument. It arises because at least one of the original premises (either 1a or 1b) is false!
___________________________________

Your applying an anology from our universe to God who was in existence before our universe was created. What exactly is a knowledge database outside of our universe?

__________________________________-
God is self-sufficient, i.e. God is defined exclusively in terms of God itself; God has an existence independent of anything else, and completely self-defined, and self-contained.
_________________________________

God is self suffiient in our universe. He is dependant upon nothing in this universe for existence. He created the universe. What goes on outside our universe? I don't know, nor can I ever in this lifetime.


God is all-powerful in our universe. What exactly does that mean? I think you misinterpret Christian doctrine. God can't create bigger rocks than He can lift nor build smaller universes than He can see. The Christian doctrine that God is all powerful takes into account that God cannot contradict Himself. He can do anything else in our universe besides this. The limits and things we can't do were imposed by God He created the laws of physics and the law of non contradiction. Even if God is limited in some way what does it really mean? He can still wash away your sins and give you eternal life?

______________
* if God exists outside of time, then God cannot possibly do things in sequence (or even things which are individually identifiable and distinguishable from other actions), including things like creating a universe piece by piece -- or even conceiving of the universe in such a manner -- or even first conceiving of the universe, and then creating it; certainly, God could not even participate in the universe, since he does not participate in the flow of time; in fact God's existence would be undefined as such -- since any "existence" presupposes a flow of time to give that existence a context. Clearly, this option is not acceptable if we are to believe any Christian lore at all.
_____________________

In our universe, the one that god created, He operates within time. More likely than naught, He has extra dimensions of time but thats for another day. God created our universe. Along with that came the creation of time. Time is something inside of our universe. Existing is something that occurs within our universe. How can you apply these things to something outside of our universe that created it. God interacts with us inside of the universe. In 3 different forms--Holy Spirit, God the father, and Christ the Son. Any logic or definitions you apply to God must take into account that God created our universe. That He is outside of it and your definitions and logic only can apply to what He has revealed of Himself to us.

Can we say God existed before our universe? Not really. Existence takes place in time. Its a definition for stuff that occurs in our universe. God created our universe and time. There was once no universe and no time. Thus there was no existence according to the true definition of the word. But the best way I can describe it is to say god existed before the universe.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Christian:



Logical Conclusion: Boris cannot claim to know more than God.


Agreed. However, Boris can try and claim to know more than Christian. As to God, Boris denies him his very existence. Boris is just nasty that way.



The flaw in your argument is that you claim to understand "omniscience."


My argument does not depend on that claim. It depends on the definition of omniscience, which is "to know everything about everything". If you dispute that definition, provide an alternative.

I still maintain that shoving issues under the universal rug of mysterious ways is not going to work any longer. I am here. You are here. You claim to know something. I claim to know something that contradicts you. We and our presumed knowledge are in the here and now. Only one of us is right. Stating your beliefs is no longer acceptable. Justify them.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

ilgwamh:

You see what was "revealed" to you, do you now? Well, I see what was revealed to me. Granted, not by some other wiseman, but through my own deliberations. But "revealed" nevertheless.

According to me (as opposed to Christians), the universe simply came to be. According to me, there is no ground for claiming that it was <u>created</u>. There is no ground whatsoever, furthermore, to claim that the universe was created by <u>someone</u>.

There is no evidence to indicate that the rules of our universe were "imposed". Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate that the rules of our universe were imposed by "someone".

If prior to the universe's existence, there was no logic and there were no laws, how could the act of "creation" be defined or accomplished? You accuse me of trying to argue about something outside of my cognitive domain. Well, I throw that very same accusation right back at you. Your very description of God, genesis, and God's relationship with the universe -- defies comprehension itself, beyond defying logic in particular.

If God knows something, then that collection of knowledge is what I refer to as "knowledge database". It doesn't have to be analogous in detail to anything that physically exists; however it does have to have the property of containing knowledge, and providing facilities for utilization of that knowledge. Without either functionality, I do not see how God could be described as "knowing" anything!

God may be dependent upon nothing within the universe we know, but I have shown that God must be dependent upon something at some point. He/she/it is not sufficient in an <u>absolute</u> way. Which means there exists an ultimate level of reality that God did not create, does not understand, and cannot control. So we are back to square one -- where did <u>that</u> ultimate level of reality come from? Apparently, the assumption of God does absolutely nothing to simplify the problem of origin. Which is precisely one of my main counterarguments against religion.

You ask me how I can apply anything I learned from this universe to reason about things that lie outside of this universe. Once again, the same question is equally applicable to you and your arguments in support of God. There is an important difference between us, however. I readily acknowledge that my entire knowledge base is founded upon this universe; I accept that inherent limitation and use it as the only available tool until I have ample evidence that the tool is not doing the job. You on the other hand presuppose that the tools we have available are fundamentally inadequate, and as a result you give up before you even had a chance to try. Then you proceed to embrace a nonsensical cultural construct as a better representation of the truth, fully willing to acknowledge, apparently, that this representation has no more self-contained validity than any others (including those that are possibly achieved through structured reasoning and empirical grounding). We are what we think.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Good Morning Boris,

Long time, no hear...

If you are truly interested in God, look to His Word, rather than math.

Peace.

Yay! Boris is back, and he brought some artillery!

I can't find one single flaw in it Boris :) Excellent work!

(but then, you know that i am no match for you he he)



------------------
.Religion is for those who fear hell, Spirituality is for those who have been there.

Thanks everybody for a warm welcome back :)
My workload varies, so I'm probably going to keep coming and going like this. I'll be around for a few more days though.

truestory,

As far as I am concerned, the "word of God" is in reality the word of man. That it is so hard for so many people to realize the Bible is just another artifact of human civilization, amuses me to no end.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Keep it up! Don't stop.

------------------
It's all very large.

Boris! I bow to what ever colour of crystal ball demands you attention, I would not wish to play words with he'

I think i see, there seems to be some tension down in the states, i don't feel those tensions in the great white north, but would like to read some of your thoughts on the spirituality of the native americans(indians, "First Nation" here in Canada)

I feel that they have it right!

Thoughts,

Why not tell us more about it yourself? I would like to read more from you because you are, I assume, closer to it.

Give us some mind candy.

------------------
It's all very large.

I know I'm a little late, but welcome back, Boris! I bow to your math any day! Hard logic and a foot in reality have never let me down. I wish I could say as much for "God".

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

Boris the bane is back!!

Hey Boris I got some news for you: Conclusions based on Assumptions do not make good math, physics or science. But that's only a minor point. Also you not that bad!

1) Assumptions:
a) God is omniscient, i.e. God knows about absolutely everything.
b) God is self-sufficient, i.e. God is defined exclusively in terms of God itself; God has an existence independent of anything else, and completely self-defined, and self-contained.

Conclusions 1)? God is NOT omniscient. God is NOT self-sufficient.

2) Assumptions:
a) God is all-powerful
b) God existed forever (time does not apply to God)

Couldn't find a conclusions 2), all I see is a building on and attempted strengthening of prior conclusions built around original assumptions

What is good to see is that people are trying to think in a logical an ordered manner. Boris I'm not going to dissect your argument piece by piece and prove via maths or the reasoning of man the existence of a higher intelligence.

I will however look at the assumption that your whole argument is based on and the points of limitation that you apply to this assumption.

Assumption: God is not omniscient. Omniscient - Without limitation of knowledge. Boris is basically saying that God is not all knowing and therefore not all powerful and therefore not in control.

Limitations: Well you apply a limitation of storage capacity with the database analogy and build your argument from there. In maths to apply a limitation to an infinite number is called rounding and is performed to come to a logical answer, with a degree of accuracy. In engineering if the degree of accuracy is high then a number is usually rounded up to give additional FAT to the outcome. Case example is 22/7 or pi, this is an infinite or limitless number which is rounded so that a logical conclusion can be reached and depending on the degree of accuracy required and computing power available it is calculated to 'x' decimal places. However it is still without limitation!! My simple calculator gives me the following:

22/7 = 3.142857143

My calculator is limited by its capacity to store and process this information. These limitations are limitations applied by man in the design of this device to come to a logical conclusion with a degree of accuracy. But it can not calculate God.

God follows the natural laws as laid down for man, He does exist outside of time but does not have divine time, however He uses time and these laws so that man can logically grasp things. God being God also has the ability and the right to cross these boundaries if he so desires. Just because we as man can not grasp this any more than trying to calculate an infinite number such as 22/7 does not mean that God is limited.


Excerpt from my original post OVERVIEW.

God calls himself I AM that I AM, dwell on this and try to comprehend everything that ever was and ever will be in an instant.

No go hey?

You see we are 3 dimensional beings living in a 3D world travelling through the fourth dimension of time relying on five senses to relate to all we experience through a range of emotions in this journey. Now compared to the great I AM who the bible says we are created in the image of you would then have to concur that He has the same 5 senses, however His are not limited to or constrained by the dimensions that mans are. Also His senses are not limited to certain sound frequency ranges or light wave lengths or temperature sensitivity ranges or pressure capacity limits or odour and taste detection limits. Why do you think humankind is trying to reach out to the stars? What do you think is the driving force behind humankind having an insatiable thirst for knowledge and technological development? What drives us to study things at a subatomic level and to study quantum mechanics? We have developed the technology to view things never imagined, to listen to the heartbeat of a dying star in a distant galaxy, to cure the once incurable, to manipulate particles at a sub atomic level and create nano machines, to humanly travel at supersonic speed (mach 26+ to escape earths atmosphere) to communicate at the speed of light, to live in hostile uninhabitable environments such as space for extended periods of time, to genetically engineer food crops for greater and pest resistant yields, to clone and manipulate life, IVF, growing human ears on the back of a rat, mapping the entire human gene and the list goes on.

Our quest is a quest to become like God, to develop the same capabilities that he has. It’s a quest that started at the fall of man when we ate the forbidden fruit in an effort to become just like God. A quest to be able to transcend the limits that bind us through knowledge and technology and thereby say that we as humankind have achieved the status of god. We have built and are building a new Babylon, a tower of technology that spirals upwards towards the heavens in an effort to reach and assault the throne of God.

What I’m trying to get across is the massive greatness of an infinite God compared to finite man, we only see in part with the capacity and abilities that we have, but He sees the whole. We often judge wrongly because of this but His judgement is sound because of his immense and infinite greatness. It a complex thing to try to understand the mind of God, only one human has ever done this - Jesus. He said that he only said and did the things he saw the Father doing. Study His life and actions and you get a glimpse of the mind of God towards mankind. Put your faith in Him and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you and you will start to lead a life that would in many peoples opinions be fanatical, but it will be a life that makes an eternal difference in the lives of others and your own.

There is only one way for man to reach God - Jesus.


Face facts Boris our technology and any technology is limited. Why? Because man is limited. We can not apply limited reasoning and understanding to an infinite God.

I've been where your at Boris, I checked it all out, I tried every argument, I investigated alternatives, I went full circle and came back to what was originally show to me. I AM that I AM. God lets us do this so that when we finally arrive and the penny drops it drops hard, our conviction and faith are all the stronger for it.

Keep asking questions, keep searching.

Take care - H2o.

thoughts- Let me ask you this about native Americans and the First Nation. You see, I have a touch of Anasazi blood in me, and my neighbors are full-blooded Ohlone. I grew up with the Smoki in Arizona and some close family friends are Navajo. I constantly heard how evil the White Man was when it came to dealing with the natives. One of the biggest phrases I heard was "No man can own the land..." This was a nifty justification for trespassing, but then how can they turn right around and say "The White Man stole our land from us..."? I thought nobody could own the land? There appears to be just as much hypocrisy in their philosophies as in anybody else's. Having lived with them, I don't think they got it right, either.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

______________________
____________________________-
If prior to the universe's existence, there was no logic and there were no laws, how could the act of "creation" be defined or accomplished?
___________________________

I'm guessing that this is the assumption that all your contadictions rely upon. How can the act of creation be defined? With words and even pictures if you like. We can describe stuff in our universe. When I say God created the universe you understand what I mean. Was there really such a thing as "creating" before our universe existed. We do not know for certain. Thus your assumption is a speculation and falls outside of the realm of science.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there was no logic or laws or anything before the universe in the deepest sense. These things might and probably did exist (yes, I am speculating). What I am saying is that you are applying universal laws and universal parameters to something outside of our universe. So yes, I guess I am accusing you of arguing outside of your cognitive domain.

___________________________
According to me (as opposed to Christians), the universe simply came to be. According to me, there is no ground for claiming that it was created. There is no ground whatsoever, furthermore, to claim that the universe was created by someone.
_________________________________

How exactly did it come to be? Did it come to be on its own? Did it come to be out of nothing without any reason? There is something outside of our universe. Whether its a monkey, a spiritual being, something which we cannot comprehend or adequately describe, or a universesal playground, that is another matter. Without a plausible world view your speculation is as good as mine regarding whats 'out there.' But if a being broke into our history, gave us a manual for life, did all sorts of miralcles to confirm His identity, and died for our sins then I would have adequate ground for saying the universe was created by a creator. But looking at the big bang by itself does not tell us the universe was created by some spiritual type being. Nor does it imply the neccesity of a creator. But the most consistent world view on the market (Christianity) says it was created by a creator and this statement is in line with the known facts of science.

You may disagree with christianity being the most consistent world view and about God breaking into our history but I am most interested in discussing in this thread is what I said above (is that you are applying universal laws and universal parameters to something outside of our universe). I know i got off track a little. Sorry.

Have a great day!

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

thoughts,

Actually I am not all that educated in the views of the North. However, you will note that my tendencies lie in an entirely anti-religious camp. Which means, if the Indians you mention rely purely upon tradition for their "knowledge", I can agree with them no more than I can with any other religious sect.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Tony H2o:

Actually, conclusions based upon assumptions is precisely how math, physics and science work. And that's no minor point.

The particular ultimate conclusions I cite are basically a refutation of the assumptions. This is what proof by contradiction is all about. All I have shown is that religion contradicts common sense, logic, and the universe in general. Take that particular observation for what it's worth, but I'm not quite done yet...

When it comes to limitations, you misunderstand me. I have no beef with infinities. In fact, God's powers and knowledge may as well be infinite (if God existed, that is.) However, what I do make clear is that God does not know <u>everything</u>, and does not control <u>everything</u>, no matter how large his/her/its powers are. Minor conclusions follow, such as: God is not the ultimate origin of everything, and God is not the ultimate reference frame (even if God existed.) In short, my argument is quite a bit deeper than you seem to have perceived on a first skim.

Indeed, what I have shown is that much of the religious babble about God is nonsensical. It is simply impossible for God to "see the whole", as you put it. This would be something akin to a photon of light illuminating itself. It does not work, any way you slice it. It is simply faulty reasoning. And that is the problem with religion. It is full of faulty reasoning, but faulty in a way non-trivial to a degree sufficient to convince naiive people of "validity".

You quip that "We can not apply limited reasoning and understanding to an infinite God." What you fail to see is that even an infinite God cannot possess a complete knowledge and understanding of <u>itself</u>.

Also, contrary to your perception, paradoxality of omniscience is not the only central point in my argument. Any one of the four assumptions I mentioned in the original post is equally paradoxical, and therefore must be untrue.

<hr>

Now, you like many before you (and sadly, many to follow you), recite the Biblical stories of creation to demonstrate the "real" "truth". But surely, if you have even a tiniest modicum of rationality in you, and even the weakest capacity for introspection or skepticism -- you cannot expect culturally derived metaphysics to be a source of empirical information in any field other than anthropology. Objectively, one views the Bible on about the same footing as the Egyptian religious inscriptions, or the Mayan engravings, or even the Grimm fairy tales! There is absolutely no difference between these. On one hand, we have creative works of folklore; on the other hand we have the actual universe. For hundreds of thousands of years, humanity was shackled by the former -- blind, deaf and mute under its wraps. Only just recently has the folklore establishment started to crumble in the face of objectivity; we are still in the early stages of a long process which must eventually consign metaphysical tradition to its proper place -- that is, far, far away from any factual claim about reality. If you have indeed been down this path before, then I venture that you were not audacious enough to pursue the path to any great length. Otherwise, going back for you would have become an impossibility.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 20, 2000).]

ilgwamh,

please try to read my postings more thoughtfully. You are not getting any of my points (and I do realize that sometimes they may be pretty hard to get, especially for a "believer". And I do apologize that I am not eloquent or down-to-earth enough to make my arguments more accessible to you.)



If prior to the universe's existence, there was no logic and there were no laws, how could the act of "creation" be defined or accomplished?
___________________________
I'm guessing that this is the assumption that all your contadictions rely upon.


It is not. My contradictions rely on: (1) the assumptions from which they derive (see 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b), (2) the knowledge we as humans derive from the universe around us (including empirical records, our DNA, our sensory percepts, our capacity for coordination, including thought, and so on), (3) higher-order knowledge of the same type, such as logic, semantics, or our very existence (evidencing order), etc.



How can the act of creation be defined? With words and even pictures if you like. We can describe stuff in our universe.


We can indeed "describe stuff <u>in our universe</u>", "with words and pictures if you like". But the only reason we are able to do so, is precisely because our universe is not self-contained in the sense I previously defined; it is governed by some laws, some (fundamental?) physical reality. This orderliness enables our very existence, it enables life to evolve intelligence and represent information, it enables us to see or imagine pictures or speak and understand words. All these things are possible only for the same reason that logic is universally applicable. On the other hand, if you claim that logic fails "outside" of our universe, then no words, and no pictures, nor indeed any kind of existence as could possibly be described or imagined, are allowed there -- including even the existence of our sub-universe! Not only, in that case, can you not refer to or describe what you claim to be God using your language, your knowledge, or your brain -- the very radical (and unsubstantiated! and ill-rationalized! and paradoxical!) presumption of such a drastic dissociation between the properties of the "inside" and the "outside", begs severe skepticism. If logic indeed fails outside of our reality, then we have no hope whatsoever of representing anything within that realm, to ANY degree of approximation! On the other hand, if you claim to describe something within that domain, with even a remotest degree of truth in your description -- then you are automatically assuming that the domain in question also embraces logic, and your objections to my arguments are therefore self-contradictory.



When I say God created the universe you understand what I mean.


NO I DON'T! That has been my MAJOR point all this time! And I am astonished that seemingly so few others are at least as disturbed about the degree of erosion of reason, and the appalling mental apathy, manifested in those that surrender to the "faith". The very first question I had when I heard about God, was: "but who created God?" I was 5 years old. I don't believe you've never pondered such a question. Yet, it is fundamentally no different than asking "where did the universe come from?" I don't see why the answers to these two questions have to be different. In fact, I do not even see why God ought to enter the picture at all (except for the fact that it is a cultural left-over from the simpler times.)



I'm not saying there was no logic or laws or anything before the universe in the deepest sense. These things might and probably did exist (yes, I am speculating). What I am saying is that you are applying universal laws and universal parameters to something outside of our universe. So yes, I guess I am accusing you of arguing outside of your cognitive domain.


Here, you are trying to keep the cake, and eat it too. It sounds like you are sort of half-way understanding my argument, but are unable to see it completely, and are left hanging in the middle, contradicting yourself. Choose one! Either logic applies absolutely, or it only applies to our universe. If the former, then you can't touch my argument. If the latter, then you can't keep your religion. Hmmm..... Decisions, decisions...

Well, so much for argument. On to the grand questions of life, the universe, and everything.

<hr>



How exactly did it come to be? Did it come to be on its own? Did it come to be out of nothing without any reason?


Now that is more like it. As long as you keep asking, there is hope for you yet. But make no mistake, as soon as you choose an answer, then your life might just as well be over. In my view, it's only the great mystery of our existence that makes that very existence worthwhile.



There is something outside of our universe.


Maybe. Maybe not! What if there is NO "outside"? I'd give it 50-50 at this point.



But looking at the big bang by itself does not tell us the universe was created by some spiritual type being. Nor does it imply the neccesity of a creator.


Good.



But the most consistent world view on the market (Christianity) says it was created by a creator and this statement is in line with the known facts of science.


Bad! 3000 years ago, it was probably the Egyptian view that was the most consistent on the market. And actually, right now I'd imagine that the Buddhist or Hindu world populations outnumber Christian (if not already, they will eventually.) As for consistency, I wouldn't call Christianic faith consistent. Just ask the Jews, the Mormons, or the Irish Protestants, or the Islamic militants, or any of the kagillion denominations and branches out there. And even though existence of God is "in line with the known facts of science", so is the <u>IN</u>existence of God! And in fact, the biblical story of Genesis is <u>not</u> in line with science, particularly when it comes to origins and evolution of matter and life, and such things as the human body image or functionality!

You are right, I don't want to see this thread turn into yet another battle between creationism and evolution, or christianity and bahai'ism. But you know my views. And I have defended them valiantly before (see the anscient 'Evolution vs. Creation', or 'Proofs and Evidences of the Existence of God', for samples. You'd have to go to the archives to view these, they are something like half a year old, and counting.)

P.S. I know you're Vinnie, but I'm still calling you by your user name, since that way it's easier to understand to whom I am replying. (I just realized it might be a little insulting, so please don't misinterpret my intentions.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 21, 2000).]

Greetings and salutations.
_____________________
Choose one! Either logic applies absolutely, or it only applies to our universe. If the former, then you can't touch my argument. If the latter, then you can't keep your religion. Hmmm..... Decisions, decisions...
______________________

I can't choose. I don't know what is "outside" of this universe. It would be an untestable speculation on my part and would fall outside of the realm of science. But I can say that logic applies within our universe. If someone disagrees with that then the fact that they disagree contradicts their disagreement with my statement that logic applies within the universe in the first place. To disagree they must use some form of logic to do so. It seems I can keep my religion and also touch your argument. I would just have to have good internal reasons for my religion to be logical. I can go for another slice of cake...

__________________________________________
""""When I say God created the universe you understand what I mean."""

NO I DON'T! That has been my MAJOR point all this time! And I am astonished that seemingly so few others are at least as disturbed about the degree of erosion of reason, and the appalling mental apathy, manifested in those that surrender to the "faith". The very first question I had when I heard about God, was: "but who created God?" I was 5 years old. I don't believe you've never pondered such a question. Yet, it is fundamentally no different than asking "where did the universe come from?" I don't see why the answers to these two questions have to be different. In fact, I do not even see why God ought to enter the picture at all (except for the fact that it is a cultural left-over from the simpler times.)
____________________________________________

So you don't understand then :) Oops. lol

Who created God? You are asking a question that is outside of our cognitive domain. Creation is something that occurs in time. Is there time outside of our universe? I don't know. Is there creation outside of our universe? I don't know. In our universe we can understand things through logic and utter stuff. Gods told us He has always existed (I am). If you don't understand that then let it be. You won't find a contradiction there. The point of it is that God is not contained by this universe. He goes beyond. I can't comprehend what 'beyond' actually means in the deepest sense but I understand the point. If you can't then just let it be or pray and ask God to help reveal these things to you so that you may better understand them :)

__________________________________
It is not. My contradictions rely on: (1) the assumptions from which they derive (see 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b), (2) the knowledge we as humans derive from the universe around us (including empirical records, our DNA, our sensory percepts, our capacity for coordination, including thought, and so on), (3) higher-order knowledge of the same type, such as logic, semantics, or our very existence (evidencing order), etc.
__________________________________

(2) "the knowledge we as humans derive from the universe around us" When arguing against God (with a capital g) you must take into account the fact that He transcends this universe and the knowledge around us. Once again, do universal laws and parameters apply to a God who is not contained by this universe? Without addressing this issue you don't really have a leg to stand upon. All your material is well thought out and logical but it seems to apply to a god who is contained inside of this universe or implys the same logic outside of this universe. If the christian God did not create the universe and always lived inside of it then you would have very valid points. But this is not the case with Christianity. The aspect of God that we see has always been seen through this universe but that is beside the point.

______________________________
On the other hand, if you claim that logic fails "outside" of our universe, then no words, and no pictures, nor indeed any kind of existence as could possibly be described or imagined, are allowed there -- including even the existence of our sub-universe! Not only, in that case, can you not refer to or describe what you claim to be God using your language, your knowledge, or your brain -- the very radical (and unsubstantiated! and ill-rationalized! and paradoxical!) presumption of such a drastic dissociation between the properties of the "inside" and the "outside", begs severe skepticism.
_____________________________

Once again, I do not really know what is 'outisde' of this universe. I am asking how do you know the same logic and physical laws inside of our universe are the same as those outside? If they are then what is the difference between the inside and outside of our universe? You may say there is no outside of our universe and your claims would then apply. But along with God comes the doctrine of an 'outside' of our universe, whatever 'outisde' means. So when stating arguments against Him you must take this into account. though, there is not much you can do with it. The universe is the medium though which we see things. We see things from a limited perspective but none the less we can find contradictions and stuff but it seems pretty hard to find them outside of our cognitive domain. They are just speculations, not contradictions. Again, without first adressing these issues you don't really have a leg to stand upon.


_______________________________________
"How exactly did it come to be? Did it come to be on its own? Did it come to be out of nothing without any reason?"

Now that is more like it. As long as you keep asking, there is hope for you yet. But make no mistake, as soon as you choose an answer, then your life might just as well be over. In my view, it's only the great mystery of our existence that makes that very existence worthwhile.
_______________________________

The meaning of life? Why are we here? Yes, these questions make life worthwhile. I agree but whats the point of asking these questions if no answer is to be found? Who cares if as you said 'life might just as well be over' if you find an answer'. I wont just choose an answer if it lacks good reason. If I found an answer that completes a puzzle and produces a very consistent world view and goes along with other established facts then I'd choose it. There would have to be good evidence for me to do so. But I would not dogmatize my own opinion of the world around me as 100% accurate. I do have good evidence and just cause to believe in God.

__________________________________
"There is something outside of our universe."

Maybe. Maybe not! What if there is NO "outside"? I'd give it 50-50 at this point.
_____________________________________

I disagree with that slightly. If there is no 'outside' how do you explain the universe being here? I thought the big bang says our universe didn't always exist? Correct me if I'm wrong. There must be a reason for the universe being around. The reason the universe is here can't be internal in my opinion. Do you see it differently? And I'm not assuming some sort of logic outside the universe. I'm just saying that from within the universe needs to have a reason to be here. From there, you can take it where you want.

____________________________
And in fact, the biblical story of Genesis is not in line with science, particularly when it comes to origins and evolution of matter and life, and such things as the human body image or functionality!
___________________________

Big time disagreement here. In fact, I would say that just the opposite is the case. I went back and read a few of those creation/evolution things. I didn't see anything new. Very few Christians and non-Christians understand how Genesis is compatible with the findings of modern science. And this is without distorting the text. Literally read, the Genesis account is in perfect harmony with the known facts established by science. For the author to be able to get these things right is ridiculouly incredibles. It definitely calls for the divine and gives the bible major credibility. Btw, I'm not talking about young earth creationism. My position is more commonly known as progressive creationism, thiestic evolution, or old earth creationism.

Have a great week.
I don't mind if you call me Vinnie or ilgwamh.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

Lets say for arguments sake that God does not know everything. What, being practical, does this mean for us? Would it keep you from having faith in Him? God may not know everything but He knows a lot about us and what we need. He knows that we need forgiveness for our sins and is much more powerful than us. God may not know everything and be all powerful in a way that he can do absolutely anything but what does this mean? How does it hinder Christianity. I don't remember God ever saying I know absolutely everything or can do absolutely anything. I don't see how these facts would hinder someone from having a relationship with Jesus or how they disprove christianity.

You may say if God doesn't know everything then He may be wrong about certain things or laws He gave to His creation but I disagree. One reason is that it is just a speculation. Speculating and showing evedence are two different matters. Remember, if this God stuff is true where did our logic, laws, and reasoning power come from? Or should I say who did they come from?

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

ilgwamh,



I can't choose. I don't know what is "outside" of this universe. It would be an untestable speculation on my part and would fall outside of the realm of science. But I can say that logic applies within our universe. ... It seems I can keep my religion and also touch your argument. I would just have to have good internal reasons for my religion to be logical.


There is indeed no question that logic applies within our universe (I should hope so!) However, you are not asked to speculate about applicability of logic outside of our universe, if such a thing exists. What you are asked to do, is to realize that your reasoning has led you into a trap. If logic applies outside of our universe, then you indeed can't touch my argument, unless you devise a logical refutation for it. You cannot touch it in the sense of claiming that it is not applicable to God. On the other hand, if logic does not apply outside of our universe, then of course my argument wouldn't apply either. But neither would your religion! In that case, you can't pretend to understand <u>anything</u> about the outside of our universe -- including "presense" or "absense" of any "entity" within that "realm". I put all of these words in quotation marks because none of them would have a meaning within a context that does not support logic. This is what I mean when I say you can't keep your religion in this case -- you cannot claim to possess <u>knowledge</u> of anything that does not obey logic -- as a creature existing within a logical world, you are simply incapable of "knowing" anything within a realm where logic does not apply. Which means that, if logic does not apply to the outside of our universe, nothing contained in the Bible is true. As I've previously suggested -- decisions, decisions....will lead you nowhere, but toward a realization that religion in general makes about as much sense as a flying pink elephant.



Who created God? You are asking a question that is outside of our cognitive domain.


Sure, and what makes you think that it is within our cognitive domain to ask, "who created the universe"?! What's the ultimate difference between "God" and "universe", in terms of existence and creation??



Gods told us He has always existed (I am).


Oh? Please, don't tell me this is proof enough for you! Besides, who cares what "God" tells you, if what you are told makes <u>no sense</u>. After all, given that, and even assuming you believe in God: either God is not wise enough to convey to us what he really means, or we are not smart enough to understand what God really says. Whichever you choose, you are forced to discard everything your "God" tells you as meaningless. So you still can't keep your religion. And as an afterthought, notice that the very existence of "God", not to mention communication from it, is not an apriori truth in this forum.

You say, "I can't comprehend what 'beyond' actually means in the deepest sense but I understand the point." Yet, are you really sure that you "understand the point"? How do you know that your so-called "understanding" is not merely a form of <u>misunderstanding</u>? The only way to test such things, is with empirical facts and logic. So unless you are able to formulate "what 'beyond' actually means" -- you cannot claim that you "understand the point."



Once again, do universal laws and parameters apply to a God who is not contained by this universe? Without addressing this issue you don't really have a leg to stand upon. All your material is well thought out and logical but it seems to apply to a god who is contained inside of this universe or implys the same logic outside of this universe.


Once again, I restate that all <u>any of us</u> have to go on, is what we know from within the confines of our universe. You are no different from me in this respect; you are just as limited in your cognitive reach as I am; we are both prisoners of our reality, being a mere part and parcel of it. This is precisely the leg I stand on. We don't have to assume that God, if it exists, "implys the same logic outside of this universe." All we have to do is realize that if our logic does not apply to the outside, then we cannot know <u>anything</u> about the outside -- including presense or absense of God. On the other hand, if we know even that tiny little bit about the outside -- that God exists there, for example -- then it is automatically true that our logic applies to the outside as well. There are no maybes here, no in-betweens. And either choice leaves you without ammunition.



If I found an answer that completes a puzzle and produces a very consistent world view and goes along with other established facts then I'd choose it. There would have to be good evidence for me to do so.


My claims regarding this statement of yours, are:
1) your answer is not a "very consistent" world view (which is the point of this entire thread)
2) your answer does not go "along with other established facts" (a minor point of this thread)
3) there is no "good evidence" for you to choose your particular answer



If there is no 'outside' how do you explain the universe being here?


If there is an 'outside', how do you explain the 'outside' being here?

It is possible (though by no means certain) that the very question of origin is improper, only we don't realize that yet. (improper, I mean, in a way analogous to such questions as "where lies the end of the world")



There must be a reason for the universe being around.


Once again, we don't know. If logic applies outside of our universe, then there indeed must be a reason. However, if logic does not apply outside of the universe, then causality does not apply either. In fact, while all this time we have been talking about an "outside" -- we must realize that if logic fails at some point, we cannot even discuss such a concept (inside vs. outside are logically coupled ideas.) So you see, if logic fails at some point, we cannot even begin to discuss an ultimate "origin".

In fact, logic cannot fail in any trivial fashion. For example, if you suppose a dichotomy between a logical "inside" and an illogical "outside", then that very dichotomy, which is logical, disproves the existence of such a boundary (from the point of view of the "outside", such a boundary is paradoxical.) Within an illogical super-universe, no concepts whatsoever could survive; for example, existence is logically coupled to inexistence, so neither can have a definition within an illogical domain. In short, you cannot have a logical sub-universe embedded within an illogical super-universe just for the heck of it. In fact, you will have to work very hard to even begin to understand how that could possibly be. And in fact, it may very well be that such a situation is downright impossible.

On the other hand, if we assume that logic applies everywhere and at all levels, then we are led down an infinite regress of "what created what".

Either way, no traditional religion provides satisfactory resolution to either of these conundrums. In fact, the very seeming intractability of both scenarios may in itself be an indication that the question of ultimate origin is meaningless -- and the only reason some of us claim to possess answers to such a question, is because they or their ancestors were simple-minded enough to ask -- which certainly would indicate that any and all religious knowledge is generated purely by simple-minded human cultures.



Very few Christians and non-Christians understand how Genesis is compatible with the findings of modern science. And this is without distorting the text.


Let's focus on the Christians. If the majority of them cannot accept the findings of modern science, and deem certain theories to be in conflict with their religion, then could it indeed be that they are correct, "without distorting the text"? What makes you think that you are more in touch with God than the majority of practitioners of your own religion? Yet, if they are more in touch with God and its "word" than you are, then your interpretation is obviously false! Either way, you are in a somewhat difficult position here, won't you agree?



My position is more commonly known as progressive creationism, thiestic evolution, or old earth creationism


You don't seem to understand how nonsensical "theistic evolution" sounds. You cannot mix religion and science, simply because science does not allow any assumptions that cannot be empirically refuted. "Theistic evolution" is equivalent to something like "pseudoscientific science". Thank your for contributing yet another self-contradiction to the long list of this discussion.


<h3><center>with regard to your second post:</center></h3>



Lets say for arguments sake that God does not know everything. ... God may not know everything and be all powerful in a way that he can do absolutely anything but what does this mean? How does it hinder Christianity.


Right off the top of my head, this means:
1) God is not the ultimate origin of everything
2) God knows what it's doing no more than any random one of us
3) God would have to have his own "God" of some kind, which begs the question: which one of all that infinite hierarchy of Gods is it truly proper to "worship"?
4) Why worship some stuck-up hyperdimensional alien?

In short, such a retreat on your part reduces God to merely a powerful and intelligent lifeform not fundamentally different in its nature or limitations from any one of us. In that view, we are simply weaker and more limited than God, but not fundamentally distinct from him. The distinction between God and a lowly bacterium becomes merely a matter of degree, rather than a matter of genuine dissociation.

This is all precisely the kind of "blasphemy" that certain Christian members of this discussion board actively crusade against. So, at least evidenced by their reactions, the implications for Christianity would be very dire indeed. That's why in showing absolute omniscience to be paradoxical, I claim to disprove one of the central tenets of Christianic faith.



Remember, if this God stuff is true where did our logic, laws, and reasoning power come from? Or should I say who did they come from?


Our logic and reasoning power, at least according to me, came purely out of those very "laws" that you mention. So, as far as origins are concerned, the source of the "laws" is the only thing that needs explaining.

The Big Bang does not assume that the universe or its laws did not exist in their entirety prior to the "bang". In the Big Bang, the universe merely expanded from an infinitely compressed state. And, with respect to the aforementioned Big Bang, I must caution you that you are trying to use an empirical theory to support a non-empirical framework. The Big Bang is merely a model; it is by no means (and is not claimed by anybody to be) the real, absolutely correct, interpretation of what "happened". And actually, in that view, it is especially amusing to see people trying to reconcile their religion with an intermediary scientific working model, and claiming that to be the "true" interpretation. Not an entirely original enterprise, by the way, since in the past Christianity had been equally perfectly "reconciled" with everything from alchemistry, to Newtonian physics, to mathematics, to slavery, to cellular biology. Just goes to show you how conveniently flexible the process of "interpretation" can be, when the only constraint is a desire for perfect agreement.

Now, even if the laws were originated, why does it have to be a "who", instead of a "what"? This is a very deep and important question; yet religious folk simply assume an answer to it seemingly without giving it any thought. It's one of the traits of religion that irks me greatly. After all, even within our own universe, there are a whole unimaginably large lot more of different possible "whats" in existence, than there are different "whos".

Finally, I once again reiterate the difficulties with defining an ultimate origin. I suspect that even as a modern civilization we simply have not yet developed the wherewithal to properly debate such an issue, much less reach conclusions on it some 6000 years ago in the bronze age.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 23, 2000).]

Boris,


This has been rather brief, but I think I've shown quite convincingly that Christianity clashes with sound reason at many, very fundamental, levels.

Thank the God/dess for brevity! I'd hate to see what your long posts look like!

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Oxygen,


I constantly heard how evil the White Man was when it came to dealing with the natives. One of the biggest phrases I heard was "No man can own the land..." This was a nifty justification for trespassing, but then how can they turn right around and say "The White Man stole our land from us..."? I thought nobody could own the land? There appears to be just as much hypocrisy in their philosophies as in anybody else's. Having lived with them, I don't think they got it right, either.

If you are renting a house or apartment, do you own it? No. Is it your home? Yes. Does anyone else have the right to come in and take it over, forcibly shoving you and your family into a small corner of your domicile, say, the bathroom, and then claim that since you didn't "own" it in the first place, they did nothing wrong? The answer seems obvious to me...

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Greetings and salutations.
_______________________________________
Right off the top of my head, this means:
1) God is not the ultimate origin of everything
_______________________________________

Bad logic or a misunderstanding of the question that I asked. God would still be the author of the universe given my assumption.

_____________________________________
2) God knows what it's doing no more than any random one of us
______________________________________

I'm sorry, that is incorrect. You could say that God is not all powerful because He wouldn't know everything and things He doesn't know about would be kind of hard for Him to change. But the question I asked assumed that God not knowing every single thing was because it would be a self contradiction in our universe. Remember I said God can do anything but contradict Himself. Thats kind of where my question was comming from. Sorry for not being clear. Not to menion the fact that God seemingly knows what He needs to if this were the case.

__________________________________
3) God would have to have his own "God" of some kind, which begs the question: which one of all that infinite hierarchy of Gods is it truly proper to "worship"?
___________________________________

Nope. It is a possibility that 'God might have some "god." I can't disprove that claim. But that claim is outside of the realm of science.

________________________________________
4) Why worship some stuck-up hyperdimensional alien?
______________________________________

I can't think of a good reason only selfish ones, thats probably why I don't. Not to mention the fact that I don't know any hyperdimensional aliens or whether they even exist in the first place.

_______________________________________
If logic applies outside of our universe, then you indeed can't touch my argument, unless you devise a logical refutation for it. You cannot touch it in the sense of claiming that it is not applicable to God.
_________________________________________

It is logical for two massive objects to attract one another. I'll speculate here. If in another universe gravity acted in an opposite direction then it would be logical for two massive objects to expel one another. Physical laws and universal parameters cannot be apllied to God unless you can give me a detailed description of what is outside of our universe or tell me whether there is an outside or what physical laws it has. Without addressing these issues you do not have a leg to stand on.

I kind of came to the conclusion that speculating about the non existince of logic is illogical so I'll leave that alone now.

Why can't I keep my religion? Some Entity did all sorts of miraculous things like predict the future, send plagues, part seas, harden hearts, and a whole buch of utter stuff. Then somehow this Entity became flesh and did more miraculous things like walk on water, heal the sick, feed lots of people with very little food, control the weather, walk through walls, and die for sins. This Entity also claimed to have created our universe. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Whether is assumes logic outside of our universe or not I can still keep my religion. Don't forget that this description of the creative process was given from the indside of our universe.

I know I've contradicted myslef in previous posts. I'll admit it. I was developing the argument as we went along. What better way to do it than to have someone logically disect it. Where I am at now I can not see any flaws in my logic. Questions like 'who created God' and applying physical laws and universal parameters to God are not logically consistent. Though maybe you'll asist me in pointing out some more flaws.

________________________________
You don't seem to understand how nonsensical "theistic evolution" sounds. You cannot mix religion and science, simply because science does not allow any assumptions that cannot be empirically refuted. "Theistic evolution" is equivalent to something like "pseudoscientific science". Thank your for contributing yet another self-contradiction to the long list of this discussion.
____________________________________


I did say this: "Very few Christians and non-Christians understand how Genesis is compatible with the findings of modern science. And this is without distorting the text." You appear to be one of the non-Christians who doesn't understand how Genesis is compatable with the findings of modern science. You stereotype all of creationist as 'mixing religion and science, simply because science does not allow any assumptions that cannot be empirically refuted.' Thats a real good excuse to avoid the issue.

_____________________________________________
Let's focus on the Christians. If the majority of them cannot accept the findings of modern science, and deem certain theories to be in conflict with their religion, then could it indeed be that they are correct, "without distorting the text"? What makes you think that you are more in touch with God than the majority of practitioners of your own religion? Yet, if they are more in touch with God and its "word" than you are, then your interpretation is obviously false! Either way, you are in a somewhat difficult position here, won't you agree?
_______________________________________

I never said I was more in touch with God than the majority of practitioners of my own religion.

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited January 25, 2000).]

ilgwamh,



"...1) God is not the ultimate origin of everything..."
Bad logic or a misunderstanding of the question that I asked. God would still be the author of the universe given my assumption.


The universe is not the only thing I refer to, when I say "everything". When I say "everything", I refer to the universe, of course, but <u>also</u> to God, and <u>also</u> to the domain (putatively somehow "outside" of our universe) within which God exists, and <u>also</u> to the stuff God is made of, and <u>also</u> to any rules that govern that "stuff". So no, if God is not the absolute everything, then he/she/it is not the absolute origin. Logic dictates that God cannot be the absolute origin, as I've shown previously.



"...2) God knows what it's doing no more than any random one of us..."
I'm sorry, that is incorrect...


You kept on with more stuff, but none of it is intelligible to me. I still don't see why "that is incorrect." We don't know everything, and as a result are prone to being wrong. Were God not absolutely omniscient, it would be just as prone to mistakes. That's all I was saying. (Perhaps God would make relatively fewer mistakes than we do because it knows relatively more than we do, but it would still not be "perfect".) In that respect, we have every right to question God or any of its alleged "communications".



"...3) God would have to have his own "God" of some kind, which begs the question: which one of all that infinite hierarchy of Gods is it truly proper to "worship"?..."
Nope. It is a possibility that 'God might have some "god." I can't disprove that claim. But that claim is outside of the realm of science.


Let's see... There are things about which God doesn't know. Therefore, God did not create them. Therefore, they were created by some(one/thing) even more primary than God. Therefore, assuming that God is not absolutely omniscient directly implies that there is something even more primary than God. Which part of this does your "Nope" apply to?



"...4) Why worship some stuck-up hyperdimensional alien?..."
I can't think of a good reason only selfish ones, thats probably why I don't. Not to mention the fact that I don't know any hyperdimensional aliens or whether they even exist in the first place.


I thought it would be rather obvious that the "hyperdimensional alien" I refer to here is what you call "God". God must have greater dimensionality than us because it allegedly created our four spacetime dimensions in the first place, engages in timetravel, exists outside of our universe's confines and laws, etc. God is certainly not an earthling. God thinks the world of himself, and requires us to think the same. God is not absolute, and thus can be viewed as merely a powerful lifeform. Sum all of this up, and you get a "stuck-up hyperdimensional alien."



...Physical laws and universal parameters cannot be apllied to God unless you can give me a detailed description of what is outside of our universe or tell me whether there is an outside or what physical laws it has. Without addressing these issues you do not have a leg to stand on.


I am sorry, but when did I try to apply "physical laws and universal parameters" to God? None of my arguments depend upon such alleged application. The crux of my position in this thread, is that either a) God is illogical, and therefore does not exist as far as we are concerned, or b) God is logical, and therefore its description given in the Bible is self-contradictory in many respects. You <u>must</u> assume God is logical if you want to keep your religion. In which case, you must contend with the multiple self-contradictions and other God-demeaning conclusions that I have cited so far.



Why can't I keep my religion? Some Entity did all sorts of miraculous things like predict the future, send plagues, part seas, harden hearts, and a whole buch of utter stuff. Then somehow this Entity became flesh and did more miraculous things like walk on water, heal the sick, feed lots of people with very little food, control the weather, walk through walls, and die for sins. This Entity also claimed to have created our universe. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Whether is assumes logic outside of our universe or not I can still keep my religion.


1) You cannot keep your religion if logic does not apply to God.
2) Your statements assume logic applies to God, because they assume that God exists.
3) Under that assumption, you can <u>try</u> to keep your religion -- but you can no longer object against application of logic to your religion and all of its precepts.

Regardless, you cannot keep the <u>entirety</u> of your religion. For example, logic would dictate that God is not the absolute point of reference, which directly contradicts one of the primary tenets of your religion. In other words, if God is logical then:
1) God is not omniscient
2) God is not self-sufficient
3) God is not all-powerful
4) Time does apply to God
5) God has not existed forever
and I could go on. By the time I am done, there will be very little left to "worship" indeed! At which point, you ought to start asking yourself such questions, as: why worship anything at all, or what makes God so special, or just what part, if any, of God's teachings is really true, or why believe in God in the first place.



Questions like 'who created God' and applying physical laws and universal parameters to God are not logically consistent. Though maybe you'll asist me in pointing out some more flaws.


Well, perhaps applying physical laws and universal parameters to God truly is logically inconsistent. However, that is precisely what you (or anyone!) is doing when they so much as even have a single thought about God! Remember, our minds are bound in every way by those "physical laws and universal parameters". And that means that our knowledge and our thoughts are similarly bound. Which means that the very belief in the existence of God is "not logically consistent"!

On the other hand, "questions like 'who created God'" are not logically inconsistent. In fact, they are only logically inconsistent if God is not logical. But in that case, we cannot so much as even claim that God exists. Which, once again, would mean that the very belief in God is "not logically consistent". So, if you want to claim that your belief system is logically consistent, you are going to have to face the music and confront those questions.



You appear to be one of the non-Christians who doesn't understand how Genesis is compatable with the findings of modern science. You stereotype all of creationist as 'mixing religion and science, simply because science does not allow any assumptions that cannot be empirically refuted.' Thats a real good excuse to avoid the issue.


I am sorry, but how else am I to "stereotype" you? You do, after all, take a scientific theory which is self-sufficient by the virtue of physical evidence alone (and in fact originated from that physical evidence alone, with no help, to put it mildly, from your religion), and then try to insert God into it -- don't you? Besides, I am far from avoiding the issue.

Remember that part where I mentioned that your religion has previously been found equally "compatible" with everything from slavery, to geocentric universe, to the Holocaust, to monarchy and despotism, to the Inquisition and the witch trials, to the Crusades, to who knows what else? Just the fact that you can re-interpret something vague and extensive enough to mean just about anything, says absolutely nothing about the fidelity of that "something" -- other than that it is vague and extensive enough.

I have also asked you how you can be so sure that your newfound "understanding" is not in fact a <u>misunderstanding</u>? In fact, how can you be sure that you understand correctly <u>any part</u> of the Bible, even including its claim of God's existence? How, other than resorting to mere empirical fact, can something like evolution be derived from the Bible? You cannot say that the Bible contains any knowledge, if that knowledge cannot be derived from the Bible, and the Bible alone!

Finally, I do not see even by the greatest stretch of imagination how you could actually do what you claim to have done. In other words, I simply don't believe you that you were able to find an interpretation of the Bible that does not contradict modern science.

For example, the Bible clearly states that Man was created in God's image. That is in direct contradiction to science, because according to science a) man was not created but is merely an evolved ape, b) man's "image" is by all means not the final form or function (evolution has not stopped yet and will not stop as long as any life exists). As other examples, we have the stories about the "garden of Eden", "tree of knowledge", "original sin", primordial earth being covered with water before it was "covered" with land, the "seven days" chronology of what was created before what and in what order. How is any of that (insert your favorite cuss word here) compatible with modern science? How is the postulate of "soul" or "afterlife" compatible with modern neuroscience? Is the Bible more compatible with the Big Bang, or with the infinitely old self-reproducing multiverse theory? What does the Bible have to say about the mechanisms of inheritance? How does the Bible address the (possible) existence of other intelligent life in the universe? (including, likelier than not, intelligent life far more highly evolved than us?) How is "judgement day" compatible with the currently-predicted thermodynamic death of the universe? And, I am sorry to ask, how is the resurrection of Christ compatible with modern science? Or parting of the Red Sea? Or simultaneous death of all first-born in Egypt? Or turning water into wine, or instantly curing disease by touch, or (insert your favorite "miracle here")? Or the "Tower of Babel" theory of diversity? Or the story of Jonah and the whale? Or the claim of originating morality, or defining right vs. wrong? How is <u>any</u> of that "compatible" with modern science?

But all of that is not entirely relevant to this thread. This thread focuses specifically on logical inconsistency of any religion, and specifically the Christianic faith. Beyond logic, the discussion of degree to which all religions contradict physical reality and science ought best to be left for a separate thread.



"Let's focus on the Christians. If the majority of them cannot accept the findings of modern science, and deem certain theories to be in conflict with their religion, then could it indeed be that they are correct, "without distorting the text"? What makes you think that you are more in touch with God than the majority of practitioners of your own religion? Yet, if they are more in touch with God and its "word" than you are, then your interpretation is obviously false! Either way, you are in a somewhat difficult position here, won't you agree?"

I never said I was more in touch with God than the majority of practitioners of my own religion.


Yet, the majority of practitioners of your religion disagree with your interpretation of the Bible! Who is right, they or you? And, more importantly, based on what do you think your interpretation is more correct? So far, at least, the only "proof" any Christian has been able to offer me is that they are "personally in touch with God."

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 31, 2000).]