Re: God Thread, Pt. III

[bazinga]

My deepest regret is that I will likely not be alive when humans reach other stars and planets

[CBarca]

Sorry to guide this a bit off topic. I thought it was semi-related. Back to where you were.

[VivaStPauli]

Read, then come back to me, because why waste my time refuting ignorance when I can just give you the book you haven't read yet still apparently understand ?

I don't need to read the Bible to know it's wrong either, to be frank. Just like I don't need to read self-improvement books to know they're shams.

[Cruijf]

And guess what I found? inconsistencies everywhere

1. Please share Islam's 'inconsistencies.'
2. While you're at it, could you please share why you personally rejected Christianity anyway?
3. The biggest mistake in your post that repeats itself over and over again in all your responses is your adoption of one or two opinions as fact. Seeing as how you seem to be an educated poster, you probably know that your omitting a great deal of other (and more accepted/valid) opinions.

The question is, why did you bother responding to me in the first place then?

Your point about the oneness of God being limiting for example, for example, is rejected by a great deal of Scholars and Philosophers.

To know God is to know his oneness. To say that God is one has four meanings: two of them are false and two are correct. As for the two meanings that are false, one is that a person should say "God is one" and be thinking of a number and counting. This is false because that which has no second cannot enter into the category of number. Do you not see that those who say that God is a third of a trinity fall into this infidelity? Another meaning is to say, "So-and-So is one of his people," namely, a species of this genus or a member of this species. This meaning is also false when applied to God, because it implies likening something to God, whereas God is above all likeness. As to the two meanings that are correct when applied to God, one is that it should be said that "God is one" in the sense that there is no likeness to him among things. Another is to say that "God is one" in the sense that there is no multiplicity or division conceivable in Him, neither outwardly, nor in the mind, nor in the imagination. God alone possesses such a unity

This statement is one of the most famous premises for the rejection of the Trinity.

But please, answer my questions. I await eagerly

[Cruijf]

I don't need to read the Bible to know it's wrong either, to be frank.

Really Viva? That's just as arrogant and false as saying, "I don't need to know what Evolution is to know it's wrong."

[Cruijf]

Believing in God would make this easy, but I just can't bring myself to do so logically so and it seems kind of like a cop out to me.

Why does the idea that the universe *gasp* didn't magically appear out of nowhere seem illogical to you?

[bazinga]

I don't need to read the Bible to know it's wrong either, to be frank.

Really Viva? That's just as arrogant and false as saying, "I don't need to know what Evolution is to know it's wrong."

"Read properly, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov (allowing for transcription errors)

[Cruijf]

"Read properly, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov (allowing for transcription errors)

See, stuff like that really gets me.

Saying, "The Bible is the most potent argument against Christianity" would be fine. But Atheism?

That's like saying, [Insert Dumb Atheist Here] is the most potent argument for Theism ever conceived.

And even that irrational statement still requires you to actually have read the Bible in the first place, something that Viva claims he doesn't need to do.

[RealGunner]

I want to believe in God because death scares the hell out of me, but I can't do it in good conscious. None of it makes any logical sense to me.

No need to be scared of death lol.

But if i may ask, why is God illogical to you ?

[rwo power]

I don't need to read the Bible to know it's wrong either, to be frank.

Really Viva? That's just as arrogant and false as saying, "I don't need to know what Evolution is to know it's wrong."

Well, the Bible is simple to consider non-factual. Just look at the Adam & Eve stuff. There are actually two contradicting accounts of how man was created: Firstly, Adam and Eve were created at the same time and shortly thereafter, Eve was created from Adam's rib. So either Nr.1 is right or Nr.2 is right, but one is obviously false.

(By the way, I'm not believing in Creationism because I put up that example - I'm only pointing out two contradicting statements from the Bible, just to make that clear as you tried to claim before that I'd have to believe in the Bible to quote stuff from there for logical conclusions to actually disprove it.)

[Cruijf]

I don't need to read the Bible to know it's wrong either, to be frank.

Really Viva? That's just as arrogant and false as saying, "I don't need to know what Evolution is to know it's wrong."

Well, the Bible is simple to consider non-factual. Just look at the Adam & Eve stuff. There are actually two contradicting accounts of how man was created: Firstly, Adam and Eve were created at the same time and shortly thereafter, Eve was created from Adam's rib. So either Nr.1 is right or Nr.2 is right, but one is obviously false.

But taken out of context anyone can manufacture 'contradictions'

I can name half a dozen 'contradictions' that only work because people took verses completely out of context.

Viva, if you don't read the Bible/Quran before choosing to reject them, you're just as bad as people who dismiss Evolution simply because they heard incomplete and illogical versions of it.

[rwo power]

Um, that's not verses taken out of context, these are actually two contradicting creation myths.

You have the following accounts: Genesis 1:26-27, where God fashions man and woman simultaneously and the text reads: "So God created mankind in the divine image, male and female God created them."

In the other account, you have Genesis 2 where God creates Adam and places him in the Garden of Eden. He is alone there until God decides to make some creature(s) as companion for Adam and creates the animals of the land and sky to check if any of them are fitting partners for the man. God brings each animal to Adam, who names it but doesn't consider it a fitting companion. God ponders a moment then lets Adam fall asleep and does a bit of surgery to fashion Eve "from his side". In this version, Adam awakes and recognizes Eve as part of himself and thus accepts her as his companion.

This contradiction actually led to the invention of the "first Eve" (later identified with Lilith), who was Adam's first wife, in Jewish folklore, as the people there found this contradiction a bit peculiar, too.

[VivaStPauli]

I don't need to read the Bible to know it's wrong either, to be frank.

Really Viva? That's just as arrogant and false as saying, "I don't need to know what Evolution is to know it's wrong."

No it's not.
I'm saying I can read excerpts, and if those state factually wrong things, I can extrapolate that not all of that book is true.

Just like you could find 200 million year old rabbit bones, and evolution instantly collapses as a theory, even without having to disprove each and every little assumption.

[CBarca]

Believing in God would make this easy, but I just can't bring myself to do so logically so and it seems kind of like a cop out to me.

Why does the idea that the universe *gasp* didn't magically appear out of nowhere seem illogical to you?

Cause it didn't magically appear out of nowhere?

Just a wild, wild guess. Could be wrong.

I want to believe in God because death scares the hell out of me, but I can't do it in good conscious. None of it makes any logical sense to me.

No need to be scared of death lol.

But if i may ask, why is God illogical to you ?

A more apt question is what about god seems logical to you?

But, and this may seem dark and blunt and I mean it not to be offensive at all, God doesn't seem logical to me, and I can't really believe in him. If he does exist, and perhaps he does- I'm open to the possibility- to me he sounds like a sadistic bastard and I'd rather not be associated with him. Can't in good conscious be a believer in someone who could fix everything when all I see around me is a world of shit. Don't get me wrong- I love life, I love this world, but it is still a world of suffering, pain, and like I said, shit.

Again, not meaning to offend anybody, that's personally one of the reasons I don't personally believe in a God.

[Adit]

My deepest regret is that I will likely not be alive when humans reach other stars and planets

This is one of my fantasy regret as well

[stevieg8]

And guess what I found? inconsistencies everywhere

1. Please share Islam's 'inconsistencies.'
2. While you're at it, could you please share why you personally rejected Christianity anyway?
3. The biggest mistake in your post that repeats itself over and over again in all your responses is your adoption of one or two opinions as fact. Seeing as how you seem to be an educated poster, you probably know that your omitting a great deal of other (and more accepted/valid) opinions.

The question is, why did you bother responding to me in the first place then?

Your point about the oneness of God being limiting for example, for example, is rejected by a great deal of Scholars and Philosophers.

To know God is to know his oneness. To say that God is one has four meanings: two of them are false and two are correct. As for the two meanings that are false, one is that a person should say "God is one" and be thinking of a number and counting. This is false because that which has no second cannot enter into the category of number. Do you not see that those who say that God is a third of a trinity fall into this infidelity? Another meaning is to say, "So-and-So is one of his people," namely, a species of this genus or a member of this species. This meaning is also false when applied to God, because it implies likening something to God, whereas God is above all likeness. As to the two meanings that are correct when applied to God, one is that it should be said that "God is one" in the sense that there is no likeness to him among things. Another is to say that "God is one" in the sense that there is no multiplicity or division conceivable in Him, neither outwardly, nor in the mind, nor in the imagination. God alone possesses such a unity

This statement is one of the most famous premises for the rejection of the Trinity.

But please, answer my questions. I await eagerly

I've rejected all formal religions for the same reason - the idea that there is one prescriptive "right" idea which invalidates all the others which make the same claim to divine inspiration causes me issues. It's not an inconsistency, but I've heard the same argument of "yeah, but ours just makes sense!" too many times to believe any of it.

To answer your other questions... the third point was exactly what I was saying. There are very different approaches to these theological questions, but none of them have any reason to be accepted over others. The only reason why you reject Christianity isn't because their explanations make less sense, but because one you were given first and you believe in (Islam), so the other one (Christianity) are rejected as being different. You haven't pointed out to me any logical flaw or inconsistency in what I was saying, you simply pointed out that other opinions exist. That disproves nothing.

As for the quote you posted, that was precisely my point. God's indivisibility actually makes sense with the trinity, and is not a contradiction. I understand it's a paradox, but try and wrap your head around it. If humans are only able to understand God in flawed human terms, then how else would we understand the idea of God manifesting Himself in different states of being? It doesn't mean God is more than one entity or is divided between several, but simply that that is how we understand the situation. And once again, I point you towards the same Islamic scholars I cited earlier, who agree with this formulation when it's discussed in terms of the Quran. You're right - it's just one opinion. But it's not even one opinion which is wholly rejected by your own religion, so I'm not sure what logical problem you find in it.

As for the inconsistencies in Islam, there are quite a few. I'll give you just one, which has been quite practical in recent years - I'm sure you'll agree. How does the Quran address the people of the book? In several locations, we have very accepting quotations, like "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit." There are a bunch of examples of similar language.

And yet you make analogies which compare the Bible with "insert dumb atheist here" right here in this very thread. Well, let's find some quotes that support THAT attitude, right in the very same book: "If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah has revealed, they are no better than Unbelievers." So if you look at the first quote, you'll see that it grants acceptance for believing in the Bible as close enough, while this second quote shows that it is equivalent to regular heresy. There are numerous quotes of both kinds throughout the Quran, I'd be happy to find you more.

But inconsistencies like this aren't the reason why I don't believe in Islam. I understand that there are interpretations which resolve these, just as there are in the other religions if you study them. My point is that this comment is directly analogous to your questions regarding Jesus - they are equivalent, and feeling that they disprove anything about the religion simply displays ignorance. All of these religions have traditions of study which focus EXPLICITLY on how to resolve contradictions in the wording of their texts, and after thousands of years they've done a pretty good job of finding reasons why these writings aren't wrong. Stop assuming that you're smarter than the Pope, it's not a good look.

[stevieg8]

Really Viva? That's just as arrogant and false as saying, "I don't need to know what Evolution is to know it's wrong."

Well, the Bible is simple to consider non-factual. Just look at the Adam & Eve stuff. There are actually two contradicting accounts of how man was created: Firstly, Adam and Eve were created at the same time and shortly thereafter, Eve was created from Adam's rib. So either Nr.1 is right or Nr.2 is right, but one is obviously false.

But taken out of context anyone can manufacture 'contradictions'

I can name half a dozen 'contradictions' that only work because people took verses completely out of context.

Viva, if you don't read the Bible/Quran before choosing to reject them, you're just as bad as people who dismiss Evolution simply because they heard incomplete and illogical versions of it.

Wow, I wish I had finished reading the thread before I posted my post. You made my point for me. "taken out of context anyone can manufacture 'contradictions'" is an EXCELLENT description of your points against Christianity earlier.

[stevieg8]

Um, that's not verses taken out of context, these are actually two contradicting creation myths.

You have the following accounts: Genesis 1:26-27, where God fashions man and woman simultaneously and the text reads: "So God created mankind in the divine image, male and female God created them."

In the other account, you have Genesis 2 where God creates Adam and places him in the Garden of Eden. He is alone there until God decides to make some creature(s) as companion for Adam and creates the animals of the land and sky to check if any of them are fitting partners for the man. God brings each animal to Adam, who names it but doesn't consider it a fitting companion. God ponders a moment then lets Adam fall asleep and does a bit of surgery to fashion Eve "from his side". In this version, Adam awakes and recognizes Eve as part of himself and thus accepts her as his companion.

This contradiction actually led to the invention of the "first Eve" (later identified with Lilith), who was Adam's first wife, in Jewish folklore, as the people there found this contradiction a bit peculiar, too.

There are numerous other explanations for this inconsistency than Lilith, as well. If you're interested in theology at all, I would suggest you read Rashi and Rambam's commentaries on the Bible - they provide two of the most detailed close-readings of any text ever, and resolve these apparent contradictions with some damn impressive literary analysis.

[Cruijf]

Before I respond fully,

I understand it's a paradox, but try and wrap your head around it.

Whatever you were trying to say, that was not the best way to put it

[stevieg8]

Before I respond fully,

I understand it's a paradox, but try and wrap your head around it.

Whatever you were trying to say, that was not the best way to put it

Paradox inherently mean that it works. It just means that it's counter-intuitive. Paradox /=/ contradiction. AKA that's the perfect way to put it.

[Cruijf]

Before I respond fully,

I understand it's a paradox, but try and wrap your head around it.

Whatever you were trying to say, that was not the best way to put it

Paradox inherently mean that it works. It just means that it's counter-intuitive. Paradox /=/ contradiction. AKA that's the perfect way to put it.

par·a·dox [par-uh-doks]
Noun
1. a self-contradictory and false proposition.

EDIT: That's just my dictionary. Wikipedia says:

A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense

Google defines it as:

A statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory

[VivaStPauli]

Seems - those are some crappy definitions of a paradox. It's a pretty old concept, but a logical paradox is a seeming contradiction that leads to a greater truth.

If it just doesn't make sense, it's called an oxymoron.

[stevieg8]

Thank you, Viva. Paradox, as defined by all principles of symbolic logic, is considered valid. I was using it in the philosophical sense. Might've also been influenced by my studying for the LSAT recently, since that's how they use the word as well - and it shows up fairly often.

[Cruijf]

Seems - those are some crappy definitions of a paradox. It's a pretty old concept, but a logical paradox is a seeming contradiction that leads to a greater truth.

If it just doesn't make sense, it's called an oxymoron.

Thank you, Viva. Paradox, as defined by all principles of symbolic logic, is considered valid. I was using it in the philosophical sense. Might've also been influenced by my studying for the LSAT recently, since that's how they use the word as well - and it shows up fairly often.

Ok, apologies then. There are two different ways of using the word and I had just always used the one and never even heard of the other, so sorry for that.

Off topic, good luck on your LSATs Stevie!

[stevieg8]

Seems - those are some crappy definitions of a paradox. It's a pretty old concept, but a logical paradox is a seeming contradiction that leads to a greater truth.

If it just doesn't make sense, it's called an oxymoron.

Thank you, Viva. Paradox, as defined by all principles of symbolic logic, is considered valid. I was using it in the philosophical sense. Might've also been influenced by my studying for the LSAT recently, since that's how they use the word as well - and it shows up fairly often.

Ok, apologies then. There are two different ways of using the word and I had just always used the one and never even heard of the other, so sorry for that.

Off topic, good luck on your LSATs Stevie!

Thanks! One more week to go.

[VivaStPauli]

Only semi-related, but I wanted to share:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/03/atheist-church-sunday-assembly-islington?CMP=NECNETTXT766
I wish we had something like this here.

[Sponsored content]