Proof that the Christian God Does Not Exist

[Booger]

If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God, God is omniscient, God is restrained by logical bounds, and the Bible is inerrant, then I can show you that the Christian God does not exist-- If it can be shown that Jesus was not God, or that God is not omniscient or restrained by logical bounds, then the Christian God, by definition, does not exist.

I’m going to present my argument in symbolic form.

Jesus = J
God = G
Omniscient = O
Negation = ~
Premise = P
Conclusion = C
If (antecedent), then (consequent) = >
The Christian god exists = E

A. 1)
P1- G is O
P2- ~(J is O)
C1- ~(J is G)

A. 2)
P1- E>(J is G)
P2 (C1)- ~(J is G)
C2- ~E

As you may or may not know, A. 1) and A. 2) are both valid deductive arguments. The truth of the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. That is because the conclusion does not state any new information. It only combines information that is already combined in the premises.

So the only way to show that my conclusions (J is ~G and ~E) are false is by showing that one or both of the premises in either of my arguments is/are false. Is that possible? Let us consider the arguments.

A. 1)

P1- This one follows from the definition of the Christian god provided above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to that definition, does not exist.

P2- This one follows from Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims that the Son (Jesus) does not know about the day or hour of the Second Coming. Remember, the Bible is supposed to be inerrant, so Mark 13:32 must be correct. Jesus was ignorant of something, so he could not know everything. Therefore, this premise is true.

C1, as I've explained, follows from the premises.

A. 2)

P1- This follows from the definition of the Christian god outlined above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to said definition, does not exist. So this premise is true.

P2- This premise is C1, which we have seen is true.

C2- This follows from P1 and P2.

So it appears as though the theist who believes that the Christian god as is defined above exists is trapped. Nevertheless, I have come across one argument that seems, at first, to deal with the difficulty.

Some Christians advocate the dual-nature theory of Christ. They glean this theory from a corpus of theological literature that bases its conclusions largely upon Philippians 2:5-8 that seems to imply that Jesus set aside his divine attributes while on Earth.

This dual-nature theory of Christ claims that Jesus was composed of both human and divine natures. This argument, as is commonly portrayed, looks like this:

Omniscient = O
Divine nature = D
Human nature = H
Jesus = J
Conjunction = &
Negation = ~

A. 3)
P1- J is (H&D)
P2- D is O
C3- J is O

Sometimes this argument uses different symbols, but the form is always the same. At first, this argument would appear to remove any problems posed by my argument above, because it effectively shows that P2 might be false. However, upon closer inspection we see the reason why P1 of A. 3) is problematic.

A. 4)
P1- J is (H&D)
P2- ~(H is O)
C4- ~(J is O)

So we see that the same premise, 'J is (H&D)' yields two conclusions:

A. 5)
P1(C3)- J is O
P2(C4)- ~(J is O)
C5- (J is O)&~(J is O)

You should be able to tell intuitively that C3&4 is self-contradictory, but in case you cannot, I'll explain how it is by using truth tables.

Now, how is it that one goes about showing that a statement is self-contradictory? Well, we know that for any two simple statements, 'p' and 'q', each has its own truth value, and there are only four possible combinations of these truth values:

p q
t t
t f
f t
f f

You can see that under 'p' and 'q' I have charted every single possible combination of the truth values of these two simple statements. They are either both true, both false, or p is false and q is true or q is false and p is true.

The negation (~) of these statements is simply a reversal of the truth values:

~p ~q
f f
f t
t f
t t

Now, for any statement 'p&q', that statement's truth value is held under the major connective, in this case '&'. When is the statement 'p&q' true?

p&q
t t t
t f f
f f t
f f f

'p&q' is only true when both of the simple statements are true. So what happens when we have a statement 'p&~p'? Let's map out the truth-values.

p&~p
t f f
t f f
f f t
f f t

You can see that since it is never true that both p and ~p, the statement 'p&~p' is self-contradictory. A statement is self-contradictory if and only if all of the truth-values under the major connective are 'f', as they are in this case.

Now let's apply this simple logical principle to the ultimate conclusion of P1 of A. 3), which is, as we have seen, C5.

(J is O)&~(J is O)
t f f
t f f
f f t
f f t

Since all of the truth-values under the major connective of C5 are ‘f’, C5 is self-contradictory. Anything that is self-contradictory cannot be true. C5 follows from P1 of A. 3). Therefore P1 of A. 3) is not true. Consequently, my argument stands. If you like, I can symbolise this argument as well.

A. 6)
P1- A. 3)>C5
P2- ~C5
C6- ~A. 3)

This argument is a simple rule of inference known as modus tollens. It is necessarily true.

So what recourse is left to the Christian? Sometimes they resort to a dual-mind theory of Christ, but this is problematic also for many of the same reasons as well as the conceptual problems of claiming that one being can possess two minds.

The Christian sometimes attempts to deny that the definition of the Christian god outlined above is true. That is a valid move. However, if the Christian chooses to deny that definition, then there are consequences. Furthermore, their wish to change the definition does not in any way show that my argument is false. Instead, it only shows that my argument is irrelevant.

No matter how many arguments I present, however, the theist can always change the definition of the Christian god. It is for this reason that I was careful to specify that this proof only shows that one definition of the Christian god does not exist. This argument does not purport to show that no god exists at all. It is impossible to prove that no god exists at all in the same way that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible, intangible, undetectable pink elephant standing behind you right now.

I would also like to point out that if this argument were shown to be invalid, that would not mean that the Christian god does exist or that belief in it is justified. The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the claim. If the Christian claims that the Christian god exists, it is up to the Christian to prove said claim just as it would be my responsibility to prove my claim that the Christian god does not exist.

© Jason Hatherly 2001

Good luck holding on to your faiths, theists; you're going to need it. ;)

[Apokalupsis]

It appears that problem with it is the P2- ~(J is O) in A1 argument 2.

Jesus was both human and God. You (or rather Jason Hatherly) touched upon this briefly I see, but did so erroneously (at least in the part of the post that I've had time to read...perhaps he addresses it later?).

Christ was no more omniscient than omnipresent. There are many examples of Christ's omniscience. He emptied himself of some phases of omniscience and not of others. As Erdman expressed it, "Of that (the day and hour mentioned in this verse), he who became a man and emptied himself, is voluntarily ignorant." (Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel according to Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966).

In other words:

The eternal Son, as God, knows perfectly the day and hour; but as man, and as God's messenger to men, he did not know it so as to be able to reveal it to men. As an ambassador, he only communicated those things committed to him. (E. Bickersteth)
The full reality of the incarnation involved such ignorance on the part of Jesus during his earthly life. Christ has 2 forms...that of spiritual in which he is equal (in that he has the same characteristics or nature) with God, and that of human, in which he has taken on the the qualities of man while removing some qualities of God.

As far as his human nature: He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man, his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite. As a man, he often spoke, reasoned, inquired, felt, feared, read, learned, ate, drank, and walked. Why are not all these, which imply that he was a man--that, as a man, he was not infinite --why are not these as difficult as the want of knowledge respecting the particular time of a future event; especially when that time must be made known by God, and when he chose that the man, Christ Jesus, should grow and think, and speak as a man?


Good luck holding on to your faiths, theists; you're going to need it.
It will take more than the above post to make me "need it". ;)

[Booger]

Jesus was both human and God. You (or rather Jason Hatherly) touched upon this briefly I see, but did so erroneously (at least in the part of the post that I've had time to read...perhaps he addresses it later?).

It was in the second part of the proof; Jesus could not have been both human and God since if he were both human and God, he would be both omniscient and not omniscient, which is a logical impossibility.


The eternal Son, as God, knows perfectly the day and hour; but as man, and as God's messenger to men, he did not know it so as to be able to reveal it to men. As an ambassador, he only communicated those things committed to him.

This makes no sense. One cannot know something "perfectly" well and not know it at the same time unless of course, you wish to argue that Jesus possessed two separate minds. Is that your position? Or are you of the "apparent ignorance" crowd?


Christ has 2 forms...that of spiritual in which he is equal (in that he has the same characteristics or nature) with God, and that of human, in which he has taken on the the qualities of man while removing some qualities of God.

So there two Christs? Or was there one Christ with two minds? One Christ with one consciousness cannot have been both human and God, since, as shown above, he would be both omniscient and not omniscient, which is a logical impossibility. Here you see the Christian faltering to find some basis in logic for his viewpoint, i.e., he tries to tell you that he removed some qualities of God (omniscient), and taken on the qualities of man (not omniscient), which means Jesus could not have been God because God is omniscient and therefore, if Jesus was God he necessarily was omniscient (a point the Christian misses flatly) then contends that although some qualities of God were removed, others were not (such as the power to heal) which again, leads you to the same conclusion: Jesus was God and not God; a logical impossibility

[Apokalupsis]

Again, I say to thee...

As far as his human nature: He grew as a man in knowledge. As a man, his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite. As a man, he often spoke, reasoned, inquired, felt, feared, read, learned, ate, drank, and walked. Why are not all these, which imply that he was a man--that, as a man, he was not infinite --why are not these as difficult as the want of knowledge respecting the particular time of a future event; especially when that time must be made known by God, and when he chose that the man, Christ Jesus, should grow and think, and speak as a man?
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->If Jesus has to be fully and unconditionally knowledgeable about all things at all times, why did he not speak as a baby? Why wait close to 30 years to begin preaching?

[F1Fan]

It was in the second part of the proof; Jesus could not have been both human and God since if he were both human and God, he would be both omniscient and not omniscient, which is a logical impossibility.

Ah yes, logic. It's a quite difficult task for skeptics, like ourselves, to use logic to invalidate religious concepts that can comprise of any illogical structure. Since the concept is that a god exists, and can do anything, anything is possible within this idea, therefore doubt is nil, and logic inapplicable.

I do agree with your point, it is indeed odd that Jesus is 100% X 2 = 100%. Of course, back to subjectivity, I still don't think Jesus can be claimed to be god very confidently. But thos who want to believe his is surely can claim he was both. So that particular aspect of jesus (Jesus as god) is an unknown variable. It might be (x=1 or -1), so in essence is Schrodinger's Cat. Everyone agrees Jesus was human. Whether he was god is another thing, a divided issue. Believers are predicting he is god, but is still an unknown since it is subject to interpretation.

[Spartacus]

People of all faiths have been inundated by doubters, atheists and agnostics for all of existence.

Since you are so hung up on Logic Booger when I have stated many times that Logiv does not factor in to matters of faith (I am sure you find humor in this fact) How about I try to use some common sense on you via a Holly wood movie.

The Sidney Portier Film "Lillis of the valley", the character of the restaurant owners was know to doubt the existence of God. He made no bones about it. When the rich General Contractor asked him why he was helping to build the Chapel the restaurant owners answer was simple "insurance".

He explained that he thought that when a person dies they are dead -- end of story. His work on the Chapel though was "Insurance" in case he was wrong.

What if you are wrong Booger? Is your own self-love so important that you refuse to acknowledge that perhaps you could be wrong.

As far as evidence of God. I find it quite intersting that:

1.) Almost every culture has a story of a great flood destroying most of humanity and science backs this up with evidence of such a flood.

2.) The Book of Genisis is a beautiful poetic description of how life on the Earth evolved. Genesis does not contradict The theories of Evolution or the "Big Bang". After all without an atmosphere for sound "Let there be light" sure reads like an ancient describing the "Big Bang". Genesis even gets the order of evolution correct. Light, Earth, Sea, Land, plants, animals, man. What are the odds of an a man living 4,000 ago getting that right, recording it and having a nation of believers follow him so that his vision survives to this day?

For someone of faith, no evidence of God is required though. I feel sorry for you Booger. The evidence of God is all around you every day, yet you choose not to see.

[F1Fan]

Since you are so hung up on Logic Booger when I have stated many times that Logiv does not factor in to matters of faith
It's not a matter of faith when we're discussing a well-defined concept of god. It is an idea that is being discussed, not the essence behind it. How does one have faith in an idea of god, forget that it happens to be the one you believe is valid? Do you have faith in Shiva? Are you going to argue for the validity of any god that has a believer who claims a faith in it? How many gods will the Christian god share authority with? Just a round number, you don't have to be exact.

[Booger]

What if you are wrong Booger? Is your own self-love so important that you refuse to acknowledge that perhaps you could be wrong.

Wait a second; I have never claimed that I could not be wrong. As a fallible being, I certainly could be wrong. I just do not believe that I am wrong.


1.) Almost every culture has a story of a great flood destroying most of humanity and science backs this up with evidence of such a flood.

I find the fact that different cultures share a Flood myth as evidence against the veracity of the Bible and evidence for the proposition of the Bible as a mythological document that borrows some of its stories from other cultures and religions. The Flood myth is not the only story the Bible borrows from other cultures...

Second, there is no evidence of a global catastrophic flood covering the entire earth. In fact, available geological evidence shows precisely the contrary.


2.) The Book of Genisis is a beautiful poetic description of how life on the Earth evolved. Genesis does not contradict The theories of Evolution or the "Big Bang". After all without an atmosphere for sound "Let there be light" sure reads like an ancient describing the "Big Bang". Genesis even gets the order of evolution correct. Light, Earth, Sea, Land, plants, animals, man. What are the odds of an a man living 4,000 ago getting that right, recording it and having a nation of believers follow him so that his vision survives to this day?

This is too much to tackle here, but as a general matter, the account in Genesis squarely contradicts the theory of evolution, unless you subscribe the theory of theistic evolution and the allegorical nature of Genesis. Genesis cannot be literal and the theory of evolution true; one or the other has to give.

Funny you should mention God creating "light" on the first day. Genesis states that God created light on the first day and divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God didn't create the sun until the fourth day. How was there light and the morning on the first day?

Seems like he got the order screwed up to me...


For someone of faith, no evidence of God is required though. I feel sorry for you Booger. The evidence of God is all around you every day, yet you choose not to see.

I guess the point is how one chooses to analyze that "evidence." For some, a rainbow is evidence of God's existence. For others (like me), a tad more tangible and verifiable evidence is required prior to accepting any belief.


If Jesus has to be fully and unconditionally knowledgeable about all things at all times, why did he not speak as a baby? Why wait close to 30 years to begin preaching?

If Jesus was God, then Jesus could have chosen to not speak as a baby and not begin preaching until age 30. This query has no bearing on the vaildity of the proof. Although Jesus (as God) could appear as an infant, Jesus could not be both (1) God and (2) of limited knowledge. If Jesus was of limited knowledge, he was not God and therefore the Bible is false.

[F1Fan]

1.) Almost every culture has a story of a great flood destroying most of humanity and science backs this up with evidence of such a flood.
Gee whiz, if the Bible's flood wiped everyone out except Noah and friends, who was left to remember? The "proofs" are great when they invalidate themselves. And should I reveal stories about the floods I've survived?



For someone of faith, no evidence of God is required though. I feel sorry for you Booger. The evidence of God is all around you every day, yet you choose not to see.
Somehow I can't help but feel a great contradiction in this statement.

[CC]

Absolutely!
For someone of faith, no evidence of God is required though. I feel sorry for you Booger. The evidence of God is all around you every day, yet you choose not to see.

So there is NO evidence required once you have faith, yet even with this "evidence" all around us, the faithless cannot see it simply because they CHOOSE not to? In other words, if you really really really really really believe, THEN you WILL see the evidence, but if you dont.....that sounds like if you really really believe in wishing on shooting stars the wished come true. Therefore you have to first believe (not question, but believe) to see the evidence? Talk about the ultimate Catch 22!.........:O)

[Spartacus]

Blessed are those who believe but have not seen.


Trying to ponder and discern the relevance and existence of God as if we were in a courtroom is ridiculous. We all see the sun rise over a prsitine forest and I see that as evidence that God must exist. Some of you can not get beyond the burning gases and process of photosynthesis. To think it all some accident..some quirk of fate ... is to be the epitomy of cynicism. To delve into the scientific details of how it all works is to me, exploring God's Mysteris. For some of you here, I think it makes you feel more godlike -- superior if you will to all of those who believe without seeing -- without concrete proof.

There is no way (excpet by the power fo the Holy Spirit) that a doubter can ever be made to accept the existence of God.

There is also no power of this Earth that can ever disuade a person of deep faith from his or her beliefs.

[Spartacus]

Somehow I can't help but feel a great contradiction in this statement.

There is no contraidction. Read it again.

[Spartacus]

Wait a second; I have never claimed that I could not be wrong. As a fallible being, I certainly could be wrong. I just do not believe that I am wrong.

So you still refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong on whether or not God existis...how egotistical is that?



I find the fact that different cultures share a Flood myth as evidence against the veracity of the Bible and evidence for the proposition of the Bible as a mythological document that borrows some of its stories from other cultures and religions. The Flood myth is not the only story the Bible borrows from other cultures...

Second, there is no evidence of a global catastrophic flood covering the entire earth. In fact, available geological evidence shows precisely the contrary.
You know I have a lawyer friend of mine who is so good, who could stab someone to death in broad daylight, in a public place and he'll convince th ejury the victim fell on his knife.

In fact available geologic evidence and theoris that go with it can change all the time. Do you remember in 1976all the scientists were afriaid a new ice age was coming because the climate was getting colder. They even hypothethisized melting the polar icecaps. God save us from the scientists if they have egos like yours.



This is too much to tackle here, but as a general matter, the account in Genesis squarely contradicts the theory of evolution, unless you subscribe the theory of theistic evolution and the allegorical nature of Genesis. Genesis cannot be literal and the theory of evolution true; one or the other has to give.

You make the same mistake the evangelicals make in taking Genesis at its literal word. The word "day" is in the current bible because that is the greek word chosen for tranbslation for an ancient hebrew word which meant a period of time -- how long is an epoch or a moment?

Genesis is a beautifully written poetic description of the creation of the universe that does not conflict with the theory of Evolution. :)

[non-croyant]

Though finalmem&larr;waw&larr;yod could be used figuratively - just as can our "day" - it is pretty hard to argue that the intent was a figurative meaning at the beginning of Genesis.

Strong's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) seems to agree with me on that one, but I don't necessarily always agree with Strong's.

However, just consider the context: "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

From evening through morning (to another evening) is the very definition of a "literal" finalmem&larr;waw&larr;yod.

[F1Fan]

There is no contraidction. Read it again.
Nope, it's still there. Seems a number of us see it. Do you get a grasp of what it means when something is contradictory? It means at least two factors offset or invalidate themselves within a statement or claim.

[F1Fan]

You know I have a lawyer friend of mine who is so good, who could stab someone to death in broad daylight, in a public place and he'll convince th ejury the victim fell on his knife.
That's bad luck. Let us know how it works out for you.

BTW, attorneys/prosecutors don't really want juries of people who are too smart. Usually smart people can spot poor evidence and poor arguments and spoil a court case. They want average people, not too bright, just go with the flow, "if it sounds like the guy did it, he probably did" sort of folks. So don't get too excited about what your friend can do. Remember OJ got off.

[KneeLess]

So you still refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong on whether or not God existis...how egotistical is that?
He didn't say he couldn't be wrong, he said that he doesn't think he's wrong. If you're going to believe in God, read the bible, but just take them as stories as examples to set your life by. Don't take them as fact in any way. They were written by fallible humans.

Arguement getting a bit heated. But I enjoyed the proof, now I know why I did them in math, to prove existance as we know it false. ;)



For someone of faith, no evidence of God is required though. I feel sorry for you Booger. The evidence of God is all around you every day, yet you choose not to see.
Hence the term blind faith.

And by the way, I'd like to see some of this evidence. A sun rise? A baby being born? Maybe an image of Mary in a window? Don't make me laugh. Wait, too late. :p

[F1Fan]

The evidence of god as seen in a sun rise...... You know, I come here to debate ideas. And That's what I do, debate ideas. And I come off to some as being cold, calculated, over-rationalized (after all, we're debating, not having a fellowship) and yet few realize that I am moved by the beauty in nature. I garden, and I think it a wonder to watch plants seed, grow, survive a storm, flower, produce seeds, and wither to become the soil for the plants next year.

This sort of natural wonder does allow me a glimpse into the same cycle of life any of us find ourselves. Having the time to sop and watch a sunset is something too seldom found for most folks, if they even notice. It is a miracle, all of it, the way it all works in a beautiful harmony, not forced along. It's the way the universe works.

Such experiences don't belong to religion. They can't be claimed to belong to Christianity's god. Nothing about such an experience confirms anything about ideologies. An authentic experience of nature as it resonates within us, like feeling rain, or that electricity in the air after a thunderstorm, can't be replaced by stories in a book, or a man on the pulpit, or promises from the dead. There's a place and time for all that, for that sort of synthetic experience. But it cannot replace what is felt, openly by anyone regardless of religion, sex, age, intelligence, location. And it can't be taken away by someone else's version of god.

[Apokalupsis]

Looks like another thread that drifted off-topic.

Anyway, Booger...you have to remember that Jesus had 2 forms. He "always was". That is, he existed prior to the incarnation. As a MAN, no, he was not omniscient. God took on man's nature to bring his message to man. Jesus grew tired, was tempted, was hungry and thirsty, etc... He WAS limited as a man, and as a man, he was submissive to God the Father.

Some apologists say that Jesus, at the incarnation, became man for all time (I don't know about that one though...I'd have to study it a bit more to be honest).

Regardless, I think it's a given that Jesus was limited as a man. And since he existed prior to becoming a man, and many argue that he was no longer "a man" after his ascension, that he was fully God again. It was a temporary limitation placed upon him. Whether or not he is forever a God-man, as opposed to simply God, is a matter of debate that I simply haven't thought much of before until now.

[Booger]

Anyway, Booger...you have to remember that Jesus had 2 forms. He "always was". That is, he existed prior to the incarnation. As a MAN, no, he was not omniscient. God took on man's nature to bring his message to man. Jesus grew tired, was tempted, was hungry and thirsty, etc...

Regardless, I think it's a given that Jesus was limited as a man. And since he existed prior to becoming a man, and many argue that he was no longer "a man" after his ascension, that he was fully God again.

Are you claiming that Jesus was not God? If so, then the proof has no relevance. If Jesus was God, then, as the proof shows, the dual-nature theory of Christ which claims that Jesus was composed of both human and divine natures is logically impossible.

Look, there's no logical way to escape from the proof. If you believe that (1) Jesus is God, (2) God is omniscient, (3) God is restrained by logical bounds, and (4) the Bible is inerrant, you're trapped.


It was a temporary limitation placed upon him.

By whom? This doesn't make sense. If Jesus was God, then regardless of whether God placed a limitation on himself, he would still be omniscient. God cannot take his omniscience away from himself since he would no longer be omniscient. Surely, God can make himself be hungry, thirsty, etc., but it is logically impossible for God to make himself know and not know something at the same time. However, if you believe that Jesus was not God, then that's fine and the proof has no relevance to you.


He WAS limited as a man, and as a man, he was submissive to God the Father.

God was submissive to God?

[F1Fan]

Booger, I agree with your assessment in post 20. If apologists want to insist their claim is logical, then they have to establish that it is logically solvable first. Then, if their solution to the dilemma of Jesus being two things at once, and those two things are mutually exclusive, then they have to somehow deny that logic applies in the natural sense. But then they deny that this concept is logically solvable.

Apok's arguments are making two separate series of claims that cannot be reconciled within the bounds of logic. That he is trying to set an argument that is presumably logical, is itself illogical.

[Apokalupsis]

God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit make up the Godhead. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. There are 3 persons in the Godhead, each serving a different function, yet all as one.

God the Son took on the nature of a human, by doing so, he became limited in what he was able to do, WHILE on earth AS a human. All 3 persons of the Godhead have always been in existence and always will be. 1 of them (Jesus), temporarily took on the nature and form of a human.

Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same persons. They are all God, but God, triune in nature, has 3 persons.

I'm not about to get into yet another topic that I do not have time to finish. For more info go here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[F1Fan]

I heard the explanation of why the doctrine of the Trinity is "valid" many times. It isn't valid by normal or natural means. The religious explanation assumes an unverified exception, and seems to use the assumption that this is "god" we are talking about that normal logic and reason does not apply, or certain aspects cannot be examined.

However, I am under no illusion about this human assumption that a certian version of god exists in a particular manner. If it is not logically provable, it should not be stated within an argument as a premise, nor taught as truth. How the Trinity can be said to be an issue of faith or experience is also suspect, as moderate Christians do not accept it.

This is clearly an issue of doctrine, and not valuable as a premise for any argument that asserts a certain description of god exists.

[Apokalupsis]

, as moderate Christians do not accept it.

Who are the moderate Christians? I was unaware that there was such a classification. ;)

[Apokalupsis]

Apok's arguments are making two separate series of claims that cannot be reconciled within the bounds of logic. That he is trying to set an argument that is presumably logical, is itself illogical.
Are you claiming that the doctrine of the trinity is illogical? That something cannot be triune in nature? I would submit, that you DO believe in things which are triune in nature, and you don't even know it. In fact, I'd wager that you absolutely believe in them. ;) Care to take a guess as to what I'm referring to?

The doctrine of the trinity is perfectly logical. This doesn't mean that it is not a difficult concept, but it certainly is not illogical as a result of it being difficult.

[agricola]

Good luck holding on to your faiths, theists; you're going to need it. ;)
TAA: well if there is no God then go away with your belief, and quit trying to justify it in your own mind. if you were perfectly sure that there is no God, i hardly think that you would try to witness that "truth." without God there is no meaning in life, and that is undeniable. if we are just here to have a good time, and when we die we return to dust, and that is the end, then why do we have to abide by any laws? it doesn't matter in the end.

take stalin for example. was it wrong for him to do what he did? not really, if there is no God. because he's dead now so its over. what about the 15 000 000 people of his own nation that he killed? o well their life was over a little earlier than most but it really doesn;t matter, because they are dust molecules rite now.

there is no absolute law if there is no God. why is ur word greater than mine? it should only be that way if you are stronger. why is pedophilia wrong? it shouldn't be if there is no God. we are all equally products of random chance so why can't michael jackson sleep with little boys. he's simply interacting with other material.

without God there is no meaning, no hope.

with God, there is meaning, there is unlimited hope. He promises to save those who truly ask Him. He sent His son Jesus to die for our sins, bu this will have been in vain for you if you do not submit to God in the land of the living. "for my yoke is easy and my burden is light, and you shall find rest unto your souls." this is not in vain, and "one day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." no this isn't preaching. thats the hope that is in the Christian Worldview.

there is no meaning in the atheistic worldview other than what you take out of it, and even then there is little. what hope does an atheist have? why shouldn't we just be able to satisfy our passions even if it is pedophilia? because it hurts someone else? is THAT the standard for good and evil?

[agricola]

Genesis is a beautifully written poetic description of the creation of the universe that does not conflict with the theory of Evolution. :)

agricola: actually Genesis goes directly against evolution. why would God build paradise on mounds of bones. how could there be death before paradise? Why do you think God couldn't build the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days. he could save a sinner like me, so he could Definitely make the whole world by his spoken word.

that is a cowardly approach to take anyway. to try to compromise with atheists, and take some of their teachings.... unbelievable.

and what about all the times that Jesus himself refers to the creation and fall chapters of genesis?
1,2,3

to simply dispose of it by referring to it as a poetic account.....

a scientific theory is disclaimed if not empirical. what about evolution? (althought to use evolution adn science in the same sentence is an oxymoron.)

there is so much evidence against it.

and really we only need one thing.

there is nothing that cannot be explained under the creationist perspective.

[Booger]

There are 3 persons in the Godhead, each serving a different function, yet all as one.

Whoa. Scary stuff. Sounds like Hindu mumbo jumbo to me. The "Godhead"?? Christians really believe this stuff?

This is a nice attempt at reconciliation, Apok, but the Godhead is still God and regardless of whether Jesus is one part of the whole, Jesus is still God. As you stated, there are 3 persons in the Godhead, each serving a different function, yet all as one.. Are you claiming that Jesus is not God? If Jesus is God and God by definition is omniscient, then Jesus must have been omniscient. If Jesus was not omniscient, then the God of the Bible was false. It's the only logical conclusion.


God the Son took on the nature of a human, by doing so, he became limited in what he was able to do, WHILE on earth AS a human.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, all without showing why this is not logically impossible. I've clearly shown that the dual-nature theory of Christ is logically impossible.

Evidence of a confused, illogical doctrine:

Is it,


There are 3 persons in the Godhead, each serving a different function, yet all as one.

or


Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same persons.

??

BTW, I had no idea that Christianity was a polytheistic religion. I guess you learn something new everyday.


They are all God, but God, triune in nature, has 3 persons.

I've already shown how the dual-nature of Christ is logically impossible. Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over without dealing with logical impossibility of your assertion?

[Apokalupsis]

Yes, Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It's a very important doctrine.

Also, Jesus is not the same as God the father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus was omniscient prior to the incarnation. As a human, he was not omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent (this should be self-evident).

When Christians say that Jesus is God, they are quite accurate. The problem is, with those who have no understanding of the Trinity, they hear "God" and fail to recognize that the statement isn't the same as "Jesus is God the Father". Which it is not true.


I've clearly shown that the dual-nature theory of Christ is logically impossible.

No you haven't. You just don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I provided a link for you. ;)

You referenced the following:

There are 3 persons in the Godhead, each serving a different function, yet all as one.
vs


Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same persons.

Both statements say the same. 3 persons, not the same, comprising the Biblical God.


BTW, I had no idea that Christianity was a polytheistic religion. I guess you learn something new everyday.

They don't.

I've already shown how the dual-nature of Christ is logically impossible. Why do you keep repeating the same things over and over without dealing with logical impossibility of your assertion?
You have shown how Christ as a man, could not have been all-knowing, all-powerful, and able to be everywhere at once. I agree with that. You fail however, at realizing that Christ is eternal, and was all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipresent prior to the incarnation. Up until yesterday, I would have argued that he NOW is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent...but I read an interesting argument that he is forever has human nature. I don't know about that, I can't debate or discuss it, I'm stilling studying it. Regardless, you haven't proven what you believe you have. ;)

*edit*
I would submit, that you DO believe in things which are triune in nature, and you don't even know it. In fact, I'd wager that you absolutely believe in them.

[Booger]

As a human, he was not omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent (this should be self-evident).

Yet in human "form" he was still God. If God is omniscient and Jesus is God, then Jesus was omniscient. If Jesus was not omniscient, then he was not God. This is straight forward logic. Besides, even in his human "form" he had divine attributes, such as the ability to perform miracles, so you cannot say that Jesus was just a human; he was still God.


The problem is, with those who have no understanding of the Trinity, they hear "God" and fail to recognize that the statement isn't the same as "Jesus is God the Father". Which it is not true.

Although Jesus may not the same as God "the Father" Jesus is still God. The only thing you can do to refute the proof is argue that Jesus was not God, a position it seems like you are moving to.


You just don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity

Typical apologetic reponse..."you don't "understand" but I, of course, do." Although as a Christian you may be adept at understanding illogical and nonsensical claims, you nonetheless fail to refute the logic of the proof.


Both statements say the same. 3 persons, not the same, comprising the Biblical God.

If the 3 persons each have a different conscience and are separate and distinct from the whole, then this is simply polytheism. You are saying that Christianity is a monotheistic religion which means that although 3 comprise the whole, the 3 make up the whole but are not separate from the whole. Just like the angry Booger is not the same as the happy Booger, Booger is still Booger and the angry Booger is still Booger. Same concept, same logic applies.


You have shown how Christ as a man, could not have been all-knowing, all-powerful, and able to be everywhere at once. I agree with that.

No. I have shown that the Biblical God is false if Jesus was God and Jesus was not omniscient. The fact that Jesus was not omniscient was a premise, not a conclusion. And, since you agree with the premise, then you must logically agree with the conclusion.


You fail however, at realizing that Christ is eternal, and was all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipresent prior to the incarnation.

However, as I have shown, you cannot remove your own omniscience and still be God. God can take any form, human, beast, water, etc., but God can never know and not know something at the same time. Up until now, you have not claimed that Jesus was not God, and, as I have oft stated, if you do so claim, then the proof then has no relevance. Is Jesus God or not God?

[Apokalupsis]

You attribute all the qualities of one of the persons of God...to all of the other persons. And this is where your premise fails, and thusly, the conclusion fails.

As far as the statement of "you not understanding the Trinity"...that's true. It is not the same as "You are incapable of understanding the Trinity", which has not been claimed. I've provided a source that further details and explains the doctrine. Have you read it yet? I submit no...for if you had...then you would approach the discussion from another angle instead of the continued course which is in error BECAUSE of the misunderstanding of the Trinity.

Jesus was God in human form, and was limited as God in human form. It is NOT necessary for Jesus to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as a human. You assume it, but have not shown why this must be true. I certainly don't claim, you do. So why? Especially when YOUR claim of what the Bible says...ISN'T what the Bible claims. You are creating a straw man. We know that Jesus as a human was limited, the Bible clearly states this.

I edited while you were posting, and you probably missed it. Do you believe that something can be triune in nature? That is, 3 components, separate, but the same? Each having different qualities, but also each forming 1? Is this possible?

[F1Fan]

Are you claiming that the doctrine of the trinity is illogical?

Any religion can claim anything they want and claim exempt from logic because: it's god at work, or, it's supernatural. Excellent. This means it is outside the human realm of naturalism and logic, and can't be readily justified as an adequate premise for an argument that must appeal to anyone's reason, not their personal beliefs. Otherwise, logic fails. It's important it doesn't.

So, for those who claim the Trinity is true, or real, or reality, as it is presented, and aspects defined, there is no logical justification for the concept. I have seen, nor heard, any natural flow from premise to conclusion that fits a logical model, unless the law of non-contradiction is thrown out. It's OK if Christian want to view their world to fit this concept, but it doesn't fit a real, objective, nor natural explanation. The concept itself within Christianity? I'm sure it's logical, as premises do not have to fit the same provability in the real and natural world. So, that said, yes, in the real and natural world, the Trinity is illogical as a reasonable claim.




That something cannot be triune in nature?
How are you defining triune in a natural sense?



I would submit, that you DO believe in things which are triune in nature, and you don't even know it. In fact, I'd wager that you absolutely believe in them. Care to take a guess as to what I'm referring to?
You haven't defined your terms, so I'm not even inclined to guess.



The doctrine of the trinity is perfectly logical. This doesn't mean that it is not a difficult concept, but it certainly is not illogical as a result of it being difficult.
Then show how it is perfectly logical. Just saying "It's perfectly logical" is useless. It's fine as religious dogma, you can claim anything with no basis in reality, and no provability, or testability, and get along fine with other believers. But it's a difficult concept in the real world, especially if trying if one tries to explain it logically. And it's a real world in the sense that it's one you and all Christians share with others of thousands of different beliefs about the universe.

[Jesus*Freak7]

If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God, God is omniscient, God is restrained by logical bounds, and the Bible is inerrant, then I can show you that the Christian God does not exist-- If it can be shown that Jesus was not God, or that God is not omniscient or restrained by logical bounds, then the Christian God, by definition, does not exist.

I’m going to present my argument in symbolic form.

Jesus = J
God = G
Omniscient = O
Negation = ~
Premise = P
Conclusion = C
If (antecedent), then (consequent) = >
The Christian god exists = E

A. 1)
P1- G is O
P2- ~(J is O)
C1- ~(J is G)

A. 2)
P1- E>(J is G)
P2 (C1)- ~(J is G)
C2- ~E

As you may or may not know, A. 1) and A. 2) are both valid deductive arguments. The truth of the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. That is because the conclusion does not state any new information. It only combines information that is already combined in the premises.

So the only way to show that my conclusions (J is ~G and ~E) are false is by showing that one or both of the premises in either of my arguments is/are false. Is that possible? Let us consider the arguments.

A. 1)

P1- This one follows from the definition of the Christian god provided above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to that definition, does not exist.

P2- This one follows from Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims that the Son (Jesus) does not know about the day or hour of the Second Coming. Remember, the Bible is supposed to be inerrant, so Mark 13:32 must be correct. Jesus was ignorant of something, so he could not know everything. Therefore, this premise is true.

C1, as I've explained, follows from the premises.

A. 2)

P1- This follows from the definition of the Christian god outlined above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to said definition, does not exist. So this premise is true.

P2- This premise is C1, which we have seen is true.

C2- This follows from P1 and P2.

So it appears as though the theist who believes that the Christian god as is defined above exists is trapped. Nevertheless, I have come across one argument that seems, at first, to deal with the difficulty.

Some Christians advocate the dual-nature theory of Christ. They glean this theory from a corpus of theological literature that bases its conclusions largely upon Philippians 2:5-8 that seems to imply that Jesus set aside his divine attributes while on Earth.

This dual-nature theory of Christ claims that Jesus was composed of both human and divine natures. This argument, as is commonly portrayed, looks like this:

Omniscient = O
Divine nature = D
Human nature = H
Jesus = J
Conjunction = &
Negation = ~

A. 3)
P1- J is (H&D)
P2- D is O
C3- J is O

Sometimes this argument uses different symbols, but the form is always the same. At first, this argument would appear to remove any problems posed by my argument above, because it effectively shows that P2 might be false. However, upon closer inspection we see the reason why P1 of A. 3) is problematic.

A. 4)
P1- J is (H&D)
P2- ~(H is O)
C4- ~(J is O)

So we see that the same premise, 'J is (H&D)' yields two conclusions:

A. 5)
P1(C3)- J is O
P2(C4)- ~(J is O)
C5- (J is O)&~(J is O)

You should be able to tell intuitively that C3&4 is self-contradictory, but in case you cannot, I'll explain how it is by using truth tables.

Now, how is it that one goes about showing that a statement is self-contradictory? Well, we know that for any two simple statements, 'p' and 'q', each has its own truth value, and there are only four possible combinations of these truth values:

p q
t t
t f
f t
f f

You can see that under 'p' and 'q' I have charted every single possible combination of the truth values of these two simple statements. They are either both true, both false, or p is false and q is true or q is false and p is true.

The negation (~) of these statements is simply a reversal of the truth values:

~p ~q
f f
f t
t f
t t

Now, for any statement 'p&q', that statement's truth value is held under the major connective, in this case '&'. When is the statement 'p&q' true?

p&q
t t t
t f f
f f t
f f f

'p&q' is only true when both of the simple statements are true. So what happens when we have a statement 'p&~p'? Let's map out the truth-values.

p&~p
t f f
t f f
f f t
f f t

You can see that since it is never true that both p and ~p, the statement 'p&~p' is self-contradictory. A statement is self-contradictory if and only if all of the truth-values under the major connective are 'f', as they are in this case.

Now let's apply this simple logical principle to the ultimate conclusion of P1 of A. 3), which is, as we have seen, C5.

(J is O)&~(J is O)
t f f
t f f
f f t
f f t

Since all of the truth-values under the major connective of C5 are ‘f’, C5 is self-contradictory. Anything that is self-contradictory cannot be true. C5 follows from P1 of A. 3). Therefore P1 of A. 3) is not true. Consequently, my argument stands. If you like, I can symbolise this argument as well.

A. 6)
P1- A. 3)>C5
P2- ~C5
C6- ~A. 3)

This argument is a simple rule of inference known as modus tollens. It is necessarily true.

So what recourse is left to the Christian? Sometimes they resort to a dual-mind theory of Christ, but this is problematic also for many of the same reasons as well as the conceptual problems of claiming that one being can possess two minds.

The Christian sometimes attempts to deny that the definition of the Christian god outlined above is true. That is a valid move. However, if the Christian chooses to deny that definition, then there are consequences. Furthermore, their wish to change the definition does not in any way show that my argument is false. Instead, it only shows that my argument is irrelevant.

No matter how many arguments I present, however, the theist can always change the definition of the Christian god. It is for this reason that I was careful to specify that this proof only shows that one definition of the Christian god does not exist. This argument does not purport to show that no god exists at all. It is impossible to prove that no god exists at all in the same way that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible, intangible, undetectable pink elephant standing behind you right now.

I would also like to point out that if this argument were shown to be invalid, that would not mean that the Christian god does exist or that belief in it is justified. The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the claim. If the Christian claims that the Christian god exists, it is up to the Christian to prove said claim just as it would be my responsibility to prove my claim that the Christian god does not exist.

© Jason Hatherly 2001

Good luck holding on to your faiths, theists; you're going to need it. ;)


If God does not exist, how did we get here?

[Razor-Tongue]

I think God is an alien that started the spark from the primordial soup and started evolution. :)

[Jesus*Freak7]

You are sooooooooooooo very wrong!!!!!!!

[Jesus*Freak7]

The Bible is God's word and it states that evolution doesn't exist! How could He have started it? The theory was made up by mankind.

[Razor-Tongue]

LOL! God is a paradox. He can do anything but can he make a boulder so big he can't lift it? He can do anything so he should be able to, but he can do anything so he can lift it no matter what. Think about it

[Jesus*Freak7]

LOL! God is a paradox. He can do anything but can he make a boulder so big he can't lift it? He can do anything so he should be able to, but he can do anything so he can lift it no matter what. Think about it

I've thought about it :o

[Jesus*Freak7]

And what's there to laugh about?!?

[Razor-Tongue]

That there is no being that is omnipotent but there is probably something out there watching us and making sure we don't mess up to bad.

[Jesus*Freak7]

I sound like a total idiot but then maybe I am; but what does omnipotent mean?

[Jesus*Freak7]

r u there?
:-/

[Razor-Tongue]

omnipotent; able to do anything and everything, be anywhere and every where and know anything and everything

[F1Fan]

If God does not exist, how did we get here?
Where? Here on this tiny speck that is insignificant when compared to the whole of the universe? I guess some might want a god to quell some of the insecurity.

Of course, any explanation via a created god is no better than any other that is hypothetical. And what better way for a clever species to glean significance from his thinking than to conclude it must be his god that created him?

[Razor-Tongue]

Just spit it out man. A God I made up is better than one I could make up or that could exisit? And this God that I made up somehow created me for no other purpose than to watch me be born, grow up, wither and die? I like my alien better.

[Jesus*Freak7]

Well I don't!!!!!!!!!!!

[Steve43872]

"God is a paradox. He can do anything but can he make a boulder so big he can't lift it? He can do anything so he should be able to, but he can do anything so he can lift it no matter what. Think about it"

To say that God can't do something is itself killing the argument. It is not a question of IF God can make the boulder. God can lift anything because He made it, that's the end of it. His ability to make is what gives Him the ability to be all powerful. If I create a wooden soldiers, could I ever create a wooden soldier that is more real than me? But it doesn't even matter, because most of God's power is unknown to us simply because we take it for granted. I can't explain inifinite, I can't explain eternity, I can explain God's powers. I am talking about the Thing which created the universe.

Evolution? What did it all evolve from? What did that come from?

Also, If this world is sooo bad, and humanity is soo useless, and we are so insignificant, then why did humans ever come to attribute it to the activity of a perfect, all mighty, all powerful, and all good God? Humans are pretty dumb, but not as dumb as this. If they see the evil flower, why would they assume that it came from an virtuous root unless there is something that says the root is still good.

Trinity- It helped me to think about the Trinity as water. One form of water is liquid, one is solid and one is gas. They are all seperate states and yet all classified as water. Each state carries the characteristics of the others, but the form changes.

[Fyshhed]

Also, If this world is sooo bad, and humanity is soo useless, and we are so insignificant, then why did humans ever come to attribute it to the activity of a perfect, all mighty, all powerful, and all good God? Humans are pretty dumb, but not as dumb as this. If they see the evil flower, why would they assume that it came from an virtuous root unless there is something that says the root is still good.

Trinity- It helped me to think about the Trinity as water. One form of water is liquid, one is solid and one is gas. They are all seperate states and yet all classified as water. Each state carries the characteristics of the others, but the form changes.
Imagine living in Greece about 3000 years ago, somewhere around there. You see a lightning storm and wonder what that bright light and loud noise could possibly be. What does not come to mind is a discharge of electrons through an atmospheric medium to a grounded object. What you see instead is the fury of a god who is occupying himself with the smiting of some poor fool who dared cross him. Religions are devised to explain existence, but what about nowadays? We know all about storms, lightning, evolution (you can't say it isnt true, at least not for some animals), but the problem with explaining the existence of existence, is that you cannot really do it. The possibility of any god(s) existing (I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of any deity, including the one in my sig) and the possibility of them not existing are equally impossible to argue for/against with any real proof.

As far as Trinity is concerned, speaking molecularly, all substances can exist as solid, liquid, and gas, but the same particle cannot be all of them at once. The particle itself is, in fact, not the state of matter. The bonding of particles to other similar particles is what makes the matter acquire a form. A water molecule cannot be Trinity, but a slew of water molecules can be any or all of the forms, just divided into groups of each. Does that concept make sense?

[Dionysus]

"....Evolution? What did it all evolve from? What did that come from?....

Evolution does not try to answer this.

[Razor-Tongue]

I think I remember something about Trinity meaning "left hand of the devil" in another language...

[chadn737]

I think I remember something about Trinity meaning "left hand of the devil" in another language...

So what?

[KevinBrowning]

If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God, God is omniscient, God is restrained by logical bounds, and the Bible is inerrant, then I can show you that the Christian God does not exist-- If it can be shown that Jesus was not God, or that God is not omniscient or restrained by logical bounds, then the Christian God, by definition, does not exist.

I’m going to present my argument in symbolic form.

Jesus = J
God = G
Omniscient = O
Negation = ~
Premise = P
Conclusion = C
If (antecedent), then (consequent) = >
The Christian god exists = E

A. 1)
P1- G is O
P2- ~(J is O)
C1- ~(J is G)

A. 2)
P1- E>(J is G)
P2 (C1)- ~(J is G)
C2- ~E

As you may or may not know, A. 1) and A. 2) are both valid deductive arguments. The truth of the conclusion of a valid deductive argument is guaranteed by the truth of the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. That is because the conclusion does not state any new information. It only combines information that is already combined in the premises.

So the only way to show that my conclusions (J is ~G and ~E) are false is by showing that one or both of the premises in either of my arguments is/are false. Is that possible? Let us consider the arguments.

A. 1)

P1- This one follows from the definition of the Christian god provided above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to that definition, does not exist.

P2- This one follows from Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims that the Son (Jesus) does not know about the day or hour of the Second Coming. Remember, the Bible is supposed to be inerrant, so Mark 13:32 must be correct. Jesus was ignorant of something, so he could not know everything. Therefore, this premise is true.

C1, as I've explained, follows from the premises.

A. 2)

P1- This follows from the definition of the Christian god outlined above. If this premise is not true, then the Christian god, according to said definition, does not exist. So this premise is true.

P2- This premise is C1, which we have seen is true.

C2- This follows from P1 and P2.

So it appears as though the theist who believes that the Christian god as is defined above exists is trapped. Nevertheless, I have come across one argument that seems, at first, to deal with the difficulty.

Some Christians advocate the dual-nature theory of Christ. They glean this theory from a corpus of theological literature that bases its conclusions largely upon Philippians 2:5-8 that seems to imply that Jesus set aside his divine attributes while on Earth.

This dual-nature theory of Christ claims that Jesus was composed of both human and divine natures. This argument, as is commonly portrayed, looks like this:

Omniscient = O
Divine nature = D
Human nature = H
Jesus = J
Conjunction = &
Negation = ~

A. 3)
P1- J is (H&D)
P2- D is O
C3- J is O

Sometimes this argument uses different symbols, but the form is always the same. At first, this argument would appear to remove any problems posed by my argument above, because it effectively shows that P2 might be false. However, upon closer inspection we see the reason why P1 of A. 3) is problematic.

A. 4)
P1- J is (H&D)
P2- ~(H is O)
C4- ~(J is O)

So we see that the same premise, 'J is (H&D)' yields two conclusions:

A. 5)
P1(C3)- J is O
P2(C4)- ~(J is O)
C5- (J is O)&~(J is O)

You should be able to tell intuitively that C3&4 is self-contradictory, but in case you cannot, I'll explain how it is by using truth tables.

Now, how is it that one goes about showing that a statement is self-contradictory? Well, we know that for any two simple statements, 'p' and 'q', each has its own truth value, and there are only four possible combinations of these truth values:

p q
t t
t f
f t
f f

You can see that under 'p' and 'q' I have charted every single possible combination of the truth values of these two simple statements. They are either both true, both false, or p is false and q is true or q is false and p is true.

The negation (~) of these statements is simply a reversal of the truth values:

~p ~q
f f
f t
t f
t t

Now, for any statement 'p&q', that statement's truth value is held under the major connective, in this case '&'. When is the statement 'p&q' true?

p&q
t t t
t f f
f f t
f f f

'p&q' is only true when both of the simple statements are true. So what happens when we have a statement 'p&~p'? Let's map out the truth-values.

p&~p
t f f
t f f
f f t
f f t

You can see that since it is never true that both p and ~p, the statement 'p&~p' is self-contradictory. A statement is self-contradictory if and only if all of the truth-values under the major connective are 'f', as they are in this case.

Now let's apply this simple logical principle to the ultimate conclusion of P1 of A. 3), which is, as we have seen, C5.

(J is O)&~(J is O)
t f f
t f f
f f t
f f t

Since all of the truth-values under the major connective of C5 are ‘f’, C5 is self-contradictory. Anything that is self-contradictory cannot be true. C5 follows from P1 of A. 3). Therefore P1 of A. 3) is not true. Consequently, my argument stands. If you like, I can symbolise this argument as well.

A. 6)
P1- A. 3)>C5
P2- ~C5
C6- ~A. 3)

This argument is a simple rule of inference known as modus tollens. It is necessarily true.

So what recourse is left to the Christian? Sometimes they resort to a dual-mind theory of Christ, but this is problematic also for many of the same reasons as well as the conceptual problems of claiming that one being can possess two minds.

The Christian sometimes attempts to deny that the definition of the Christian god outlined above is true. That is a valid move. However, if the Christian chooses to deny that definition, then there are consequences. Furthermore, their wish to change the definition does not in any way show that my argument is false. Instead, it only shows that my argument is irrelevant.

No matter how many arguments I present, however, the theist can always change the definition of the Christian god. It is for this reason that I was careful to specify that this proof only shows that one definition of the Christian god does not exist. This argument does not purport to show that no god exists at all. It is impossible to prove that no god exists at all in the same way that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible, intangible, undetectable pink elephant standing behind you right now.

I would also like to point out that if this argument were shown to be invalid, that would not mean that the Christian god does exist or that belief in it is justified. The onus of proof rests upon the person who makes the claim. If the Christian claims that the Christian god exists, it is up to the Christian to prove said claim just as it would be my responsibility to prove my claim that the Christian god does not exist.

© Jason Hatherly 2001

Good luck holding on to your faiths, theists; you're going to need it. ;)
Maybe I am just a simpleton, but that is Greek to me. Could someone explain the above in English and not symbols? My mind does not work that way, I am very verbal, not mathematical/symbolic.

[Razor-Tongue]

I just thought it was interesting that it can mean two completely opposite things.
I'm pretty sure Trinity is "Left hand of the Devil"
and Cancer is "Right hand of the devil"
can someone verify that?

[WatsonGlenn]

Maybe I am just a simpleton, but that is Greek to me. Could someone explain the above in English and not symbols? My mind does not work that way, I am very verbal, not mathematical/symbolic.

Did you really read that load of crap?

[KevinBrowning]

Did you really read that load of crap?
I tried to, but I simply did not understand it. I think in words, not symbols and numbers.

[chadn737]

Basicaly it claims that it is impossible for Jesus to be both God and man, because the natures of the two cancel each other out.

[KevinBrowning]

I sound like a total idiot but then maybe I am; but what does omnipotent mean?
From dictionary.com: "om·nip·o·tent To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Fq%3Domnipotent) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
adj.
<DL><DD>Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)."</DD></DL>
And here is a related word, omniscient: "om·nis·cient To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Fq%3Domniscient) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
adj.
<DL><DD>Having total knowledge; knowing everything: <CITE>an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator."</CITE></DD></DL>

[WatsonGlenn]

Basicaly it claims that it is impossible for Jesus to be both God and man, because the natures of the two cancel each other out.

Basically its a load of crap. As if God could be caught in becker and disected.

[chadn737]

Basically its a load of crap. As if God could be caught in becker and disected.

If that is your reaction, why debate? Dont just say its wrong, prove it.

[Razor-Tongue]

As well say count the grains of sand on all beaches around the world. Or count the number of stars in the sky, including the ones you can’t see. It's not possible. No one can ever prove or disprove the existence of god.

[WatsonGlenn]

If that is your reaction, why debate? Dont just say its wrong, prove it.

OK,

A= God
B= Exists

A = B

[3rdPersonPlural]

OK,

A= God
B= Exists

A = B

Therefore anything you want can exist and sport whatever attributes you care to grant it.

The tooth fairy exists and she creates forest fires. Proof of her existence occurs whenever there is a forest fire.

a= the tooth fairy causes forest fires
b= forest fires exist

therefore the tooth fairy exists.

Hey, this stuff is EASY!!

[WatsonGlenn]

a= the tooth fairy causes forest fires
b= forest fires exist
therefore the tooth fairy exists.
Hey, this stuff is EASY!!

Right, see how foolish it is. Just as foolish as the original equation. And our problems did not take five pages to explain.

[3rdPersonPlural]

On a more serious note, The only evidence we have, in the final analysis, that there is some power that is ex-natura is the fact that there is a lot we can't explain.

Claiming credit for that niche are 5000 Gods, and we'll have to add in at least one more God in case all the previous stabs at characterizing this force prove wrong. We know that at least 4999 of them are, so it's no strech to lump them all into the fail bin.

The best way to approach the issue is to assemble all the fields where there are still big gaps, then sort through the existing God pool to see which one most reasonably fills those gaps. Then we need to measure the finalist God against one of our own imagining and pick the victor.

Jehovah may have been carefully generated to be the be-all-end-all for BCE Hebrews, but he comes up lacking for post enlightenment westerners.

That is my impression.

[WatsonGlenn]

The best way to approach the issue is to assemble all the fields where there are still big gaps, then sort through the existing God pool to see which one most reasonably fills those gaps. Then we need to measure the finalist God against one of our own imagining and pick the victor.


That would be like letting all the toddlers get together to decide which nuclear power plant they should chose to power the day care center.

[rick]

That would be like letting all the toddlers get together to decide which nuclear power plant they should chose to power the day care center.

Ummm...so you have a problem with the toddlers using nuclear power, or you have a problem with the toddlers making decisions? Let's focus on your problems one at a time WATSONGLENN so we can try to make sense of it all. Any other method would just be a waste of time.

A=WatsonGlenn
B=WasteofTime

A=B

[3rdPersonPlural]

Hey, Rick, how can you have developed a distaste for wg's ideas by your 3rd post?

Are you a sockpuppet?

[Slipnish]

Okay, I read the thread, and pondered it a bit. Here's the deal as I see it. There is no way to logically conclude that God does or does not exist. In my own view that includes Jesus.

Any information we have about either, comes in the form of a an ancient series of documents, some historical, some allegorical, some poetry, prose, and so on.

Each of these has been filtered, edited, and written by man. A distinctly fallible creature. One certainly not above trying to add his 2 cents in, when he felt it was needed.

So...

If Jesus were God in human form, any equation concerning his Godhood would have to take into account that all of the information we have about him is accurate and true. Since we know the bible is not 100% reliable in this regard, I submit that both the premise and the conclusion is flawed.

We "know" that Jesus performed miracles. Okay. Does that make Him God? No. It makes him more than a man, certainly. But, that does not equate to God. Jesus approaches God in humility, and prayer. He doesn't place himself as an equal.

So again, I submit that the premise and conclusion is flawed.

Jesus may contain some parts of God.
He may have some Godlike abilities.

After all, he only has 50% of his DNA from God, right? :lol:

At any rate, the basic premise I have is that to say we actually understand these things to the point of passing judgement is not true, based on available evidence.

Enter faith. ;)

Faith is for those of us who do believe. Those who do not, are excused. You don't have to. Its easy. Logic, math, physics, biology, psychology, sociology, and a host of other "ologies" will not shake that bit of core belief. It won't even stir the leaves.

Religion and science are seperate camps. Religion and logic are different worlds.

One does not rule out the other, for science and religion, because religion should exist on faith.

What we "know" and what we "believe" are often different things. Sometimes we know what we believe, and sometimes we believe what we know. And sometimes, both of those are wrong.

So drag out your logical proofs, hitch up your dog and pony show of theorums, but...

understand this: That isn't what religion is about. ;)

We all know that religion isn't logical. It can't be. To profess a belief in "things unseen" is ludacris. Yet we do it all the same.

Here's the kicker. It is illogical, to use logic, to prove the illogical.

How's that? :lol:

[rick]

Hey, Rick, how can you have developed a distaste for wg's ideas by your 3rd post?

Are you a sockpuppet?

Sockpuppet? Not sure.

I have posted 3 times (now 4) but I have read quite a bit of Mr. wg's posts. In fact, I only started to read his posts after he randomly insulted me for one of mine. He is a complete antagonist, in my opinion. He has no opinions of his own, only an agenda which is to oppose all reason. In my humble opinion. That is all.

[KevinBrowning]

Sockpuppet? Not sure.

I have posted 3 times (now 4) but I have read quite a bit of Mr. wg's posts. In fact, I only started to read his posts after he randomly insulted me for one of mine. He is a complete antagonist, in my opinion. He has no opinions of his own, only an agenda which is to oppose all reason. In my humble opinion. That is all.
Rick, Watson is one of the most reasonable people on here, and it is not a junior member's place to come on here and insult him after giving a few of his posts in a few topics a cursory glance.

[Dionysus]

That would be like letting all the toddlers get together to decide which nuclear power plant they should chose to power the day care center.

How so? :?:

[rick]

Rick, Watson is one of the most reasonable people on here, and it is not a junior member's place to come on here and insult him after giving a few of his posts in a few topics a cursory glance.

"Junior Member"???

Isn't it a bit pretentious to judge someones "place" in life by how many posts they've made on some website?

How do you know what I have or have not accomplished in life based on what I have written here?

All I am saying is that I was attacked by WG because I posted what I considered to be an entertaining link.

But, it's okay, I am willing to brush it off. No harm done. Truce, WG, as far as I'm concerned.

[mrs_innocent]

rick, I seriously doubt that KB was attempting to judge your worthiness or accomplishments in your life by pointing out that you are a 'junior member'; that is the case since you are new to ODN.

I see no harm in the link rick posted; thought it to be a bit odd... Regardless of a member's "status" (junior, senior, staff, etc...), reputation, or post quality, personal attacks will not be tolerated. It's not a difficult thing to comprehend: topic, not poster... Relatively simple, IMHO. KB is right, though, that WG does often have some great quality posts, but that doesn't make him anymore immune to rules than anyone else here-old or new, each member here is entitled to the same respect. Hopefully this truce you've called, rick, holds up, and welcome to ODN!

[KevinBrowning]

"Junior Member"???

Isn't it a bit pretentious to judge someones "place" in life by how many posts they've made on some website?

How do you know what I have or have not accomplished in life based on what I have written here?

All I am saying is that I was attacked by WG because I posted what I considered to be an entertaining link.

But, it's okay, I am willing to brush it off. No harm done. Truce, WG, as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps I was a bit pretentious, I did not mean to judge you. Sorry. I was just defending Watson, we conservatives have to stick together.

[KevinBrowning]

Yet in human "form" he was still God. If God is omniscient and Jesus is God, then Jesus was omniscient. If Jesus was not omniscient, then he was not God. This is straight forward logic. Besides, even in his human "form" he had divine attributes, such as the ability to perform miracles, so you cannot say that Jesus was just a human; he was still God.



Although Jesus may not the same as God "the Father" Jesus is still God. The only thing you can do to refute the proof is argue that Jesus was not God, a position it seems like you are moving to.



Typical apologetic reponse..."you don't "understand" but I, of course, do." Although as a Christian you may be adept at understanding illogical and nonsensical claims, you nonetheless fail to refute the logic of the proof.



If the 3 persons each have a different conscience and are separate and distinct from the whole, then this is simply polytheism. You are saying that Christianity is a monotheistic religion which means that although 3 comprise the whole, the 3 make up the whole but are not separate from the whole. Just like the angry Booger is not the same as the happy Booger, Booger is still Booger and the angry Booger is still Booger. Same concept, same logic applies.



No. I have shown that the Biblical God is false if Jesus was God and Jesus was not omniscient. The fact that Jesus was not omniscient was a premise, not a conclusion. And, since you agree with the premise, then you must logically agree with the conclusion.



However, as I have shown, you cannot remove your own omniscience and still be God. God can take any form, human, beast, water, etc., but God can never know and not know something at the same time. Up until now, you have not claimed that Jesus was not God, and, as I have oft stated, if you do so claim, then the proof then has no relevance. Is Jesus God or not God?
What is so hard about this concept? The Bible never, ever claims that Jesus knew all or was capable of everything. Those are characteristics of God the Father. For an example, take your own life. I am sure you play several different roles, son, husband, father, employee, friend, etc. A lot more than three. And while there is not more than one of you, they still are not identical personalities. You take on different characteristics to meet the situation. You are probably a lot more joking and playful around your kids than around your boss. This is just a rudimentary example of the concept of the Trinity. To reiterate, the Bible never claims that God the Son was omnipotent or omniscient, and if someone shows me evidence of said claim I will respond further.

[Steve43872]

I placed this on a few other threads but I think it's still prevalent. Think of the Trinity as water. Water can be ice, water vapor and liquid. People could still call all three states "water" and nobody would doubt him one bit. The trinity is much the same. There is Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God yet they all stand for the same thing, they ARE all the same thing. People similarly can come into this type of bond when they start to follow what Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all about.

"Yet in human "form" he was still God. If God is omniscient and Jesus is God, then Jesus was omniscient. "
According to the Bible, When Jesus was with God (as is stated in John 1:1) He was as much God as God the Father. However, He willingly came to Earth. This made it so that He had certain limitations. There are many times in the story of Jesus when He did not know things. Everything on this Earth that He knew was given to Him by the grace of God. However, since he did not sin, he was in a perfect relationship with God. Therefor He could make such claims as "Before Moses 'I AM'". Of course, that's according to the Bible, if you regard it as a sinner's handbook to what might be right, I'm sorry for your wasting time.

[rick]

we conservatives have to stick together.

No prob.

I understand the conservative thing as I have produced a national talk radio show on a major broadcast network.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

If it's any consolation, I am voting for Bush.

[Fyshhed]

Just spit it out man. A God I made up is better than one I could make up or that could exisit? And this God that I made up somehow created me for no other purpose than to watch me be born, grow up, wither and die? I like my alien better.
Some of my first posts were attempts to get believers for my Grabzor religion (I was arguing that with a holy book and a whole bunch of believers, it will be the Truth). I'm still recruiting if you're interested :D

[Fyshhed]

I placed this on a few other threads but I think it's still prevalent. Think of the Trinity as water. Water can be ice, water vapor and liquid. People could still call all three states "water" and nobody would doubt him one bit. The trinity is much the same. There is Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God yet they all stand for the same thing, they ARE all the same thing. People similarly can come into this type of bond when they start to follow what Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all about.

"Yet in human "form" he was still God. If God is omniscient and Jesus is God, then Jesus was omniscient. "
According to the Bible, When Jesus was with God (as is stated in John 1:1) He was as much God as God the Father. However, He willingly came to Earth. This made it so that He had certain limitations. There are many times in the story of Jesus when He did not know things. Everything on this Earth that He knew was given to Him by the grace of God. However, since he did not sin, he was in a perfect relationship with God. Therefor He could make such claims as "Before Moses 'I AM'". Of course, that's according to the Bible, if you regard it as a sinner's handbook to what might be right, I'm sorry for your wasting time.


You ignored my response post. Groups of water molecules can take solid, liquid, or gaseous form, but not the same group as all 3 at once. Trinity claims that all 3 exist simultaneously and are the same person. Either there are 3 Gods and each one has His own consciousness, or God split up his attention 3 ways ( 2 if you count Jesus getting smoked as no more thinking ) and exists while paying attention to existence through 3 sets of eyes.

[absoluttruth]

If I may say something in regards to the first post on this topic:

First of all, (I do not mean for you to take offense, Booger) I think that your explanation of why God cannot exist is misleading and purposely so, although it may not be you who came up with it. Is there a way in which you can explain this "equation" in simpler terms?

Second, there is no possible way to prove that there is not a God, or that there is a God. I believe that God himself made things this way because he wants us as his creation to operate on reason, theology, and faith. But it is utterly impossible, no matter what you say or do, to prove one or the other. You would do better to try and prove that the Bible was wrong.

Allow me to show you how it is impossible. What if:

1) God in his sovereignty set you up to think that your equation was right just because he was mean and didn't like you? If God was all powerful, wouldn't he be able to do that? Couldn't an all-powerful God create a system that seems infalliable to men, but is actually false? He's all powerful, remember?

2) God lied in the bible about being omniscient and all-powerful? Wouldn't this mean that your whole equation was false and based upon false pretenses? I don't personally believe this, because i believe that God is incapable of lying. But if we were both tricked, you with your equation, and me by thinking God is omniscient and all-powerful, would that not mean that God would still exist even though we both were mistaken? You see, you are operating by what Christians, who are men, have told you because of their belief in the Bible. What if the Bible was in error, because God did not tell the truth. Wouldn't that make your equation wrong?

3) The way your equation was made was in error? This is kind of like the first point, but a little different. What if there were things about your equation that were wrong because you think with a finite mind? think about how many times scientists have made a statement and been proved wrong. Think about how the earth was once deemed as flat because man, in his finite thinking, had never been around the world and been able to show that the earth truly is round. You see how proud man is, but how we often are wrong? Sometimes we think thing are right for decades before we are shown as wrong.

Now, I wish to make it plainly known that i do not believe that God is a liar, or that the Bible capable of being wrong. But if it was, wouldn't your "proof" be irrelevant? There are too many possibilities. It is impossible to prove that God doesn't or does exist, i simply wish to make that point. As far showing your "proof" as wrong, i don't even understand what you are saying, so i will humbly allow someone else to take a shot at it.

But i beleive the title of this topic is already in error.

[Steve43872]

To see the molecules you need a microscope, maybe to see the spiritual equivalent of molecules you need a spiritual microscope (Bible).

Asking for proof is like asking to see an atom in the 14th century. You can't see it, does that mean it's not there? You can feel how all the different atoms make something up though.

I know i didn't answer your question, partly because I don't know what you want me to answer, but I don't think I'll be able to say anything except that my reply will def. be based in the Bible which some people don't believe is tTrue anyway.

[Slipnish]

To see the molecules you need a microscope, maybe to see the spiritual equivalent of molecules you need a spiritual microscope (Bible).

Why the bible? Why not the Reg Vida, or the Koran, or any other religious texts?


Asking for proof is like asking to see an atom in the 14th century. You can't see it, does that mean it's not there? You can feel how all the different atoms make something up though.

Well, I think you are correct in the assumption that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but you get into another debate altogether about the subjective nature of reality and "feeling" that atoms make something.


I know i didn't answer your question, partly because I don't know what you want me to answer, but I don't think I'll be able to say anything except that my reply will def. be based in the Bible which some people don't believe is tTrue anyway.

Fair enough.

[FruitandNut]

Booger - Your premise that 'God' can be condensed into a 'logico-mathematical' formula is, how do I say this politely? - INTERESTING? - will that do?

Say what you like, indeed all of us may say and think what we like, about God, He(sic) at the 'end of the day', is an enigma. As He said to Moses on Mount Sinai, 'I am that which I am'. This can be said of all of us, but we are, perhaps, less of an enigma.

In trying to package or formulate God into or out of existence, we cannot know the nature of God - Lucifer tried it on apparently, and look where it landed him(sic).

Who is to say that logic is an absolute, when little in maths is. May I make so bold as to speculate that God makes and defines all rules and laws, therefore is 'outside', our simple minds and simple locic?

If Booger's God is logic then I have bad news for him - 'Booger, you, like the rest of us, are essentially irrational in nature. Therefore what you may (smugly) think is logic is not necessarily the case.

Unlike Booger, I don't KNOW the answer, I just BELIEVE and HOPE, that, backed up by certain life experiences.

[Apokalupsis]

The only problem with your rebuttal above, is that logic is absolute. It's an interesting topic, but one that needs to be discussed in its own thread.

[FruitandNut]

Ah, but Apok, the day that you or anyone else can crack the logicality of our existence, and all matter for that matter, please let me know. In the unlikely event of me having that 'Eureka' moment, I will sure let you know. In the meantime there are certain fundimental aspects to logic that persist in drawing a blank.

[Lord Venom]

Hang on a second. If such a flood occurred when Noah was around there would obviously be proof. I haven't heard any such proof yet. Where is it?

[Apokalupsis]

Ah, but Apok, the day that you or anyone else can crack the logicality of our existence, and all matter for that matter, please let me know. In the unlikely event of me having that 'Eureka' moment, I will sure let you know. In the meantime there are certain fundimental aspects to logic that persist in drawing a blank.
Logic and existence are 2 different matters. Logic is merely ordered thought, nothing more. It is used to learn, claim, refute, etc...about matters such as existence. Consider it a tool. It is an absolute tool. :)

[absoluttruth]

Hang on a second. If such a flood occurred when Noah was around there would obviously be proof. I haven't heard any such proof yet. Where is it?

Well, for one a huge wooden structure was seen at the peak of Mt. Ararat, a strcuture that resembled an ancient ship. No one has been able to fully explore this ship, because weather has not permitted them do so. But there is an ancient boat at the top of a very high peak.

Also, when archaeologists go on scientific digs in mountain ranges, they often find strange things. For instance, one group of archaeologist found several different animals that could not have existed together in harmony at the top of a very high peak in South America. All of these animals were all jumbled together, as if they were all running together as one, in some sort of "inter-species" stampede.

After several more findings, tests, and observations, scientists concluded that many, many years ago, the animals all ran to the top of the mountain to get away from a flood that was drowning the entire region. There would be no other reason for such a large number of animals to be together on the exact same mountaintop.

This is not evidence, but i believe that it definitely supports scripture.

It's interesting that history and archaeology always supports the Bible. It would seem to me that if the Bible were false, with all its many stories and accounts, that at least ONE could be proven to be wrong. I've never heard or seen (and believe me, I have searched in the past) sound evidence of biblical fallacy.

[Slipnish]

Well, for one a huge wooden structure was seen at the peak of Mt. Ararat, a strcuture that resembled an ancient ship. No one has been able to fully explore this ship, because weather has not permitted them do so. But there is an ancient boat at the top of a very high peak.

Also, when archaeologists go on scientific digs in mountain ranges, they often find strange things. For instance, one group of archaeologist found several different animals that could not have existed together in harmony at the top of a very high peak in South America. All of these animals were all jumbled together, as if they were all running together as one, in some sort of "inter-species" stampede.

After several more findings, tests, and observations, scientists concluded that many, many years ago, the animals all ran to the top of the mountain to get away from a flood that was drowning the entire region. There would be no other reason for such a large number of animals to be together on the exact same mountaintop.

This is not evidence, but i believe that it definitely supports scripture.

It's interesting that history and archaeology always supports the Bible. It would seem to me that if the Bible were false, with all its many stories and accounts, that at least ONE could be proven to be wrong. I've never heard or seen (and believe me, I have searched in the past) sound evidence of biblical fallacy.

AT:

I will say this once, then I will expect you to gather your men to defend this line of ...murk, on the field of debate. There is NO EVIDENCE for a world wide flood, EVER occuring, on this planet.

What you are presenting, I would be willing to bet, is some misinformation presented by a creationist website, littered with propaganda, and filled with pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Now, do you have a reference for this little anecdote, or what?

BTW: Slip hates pseudoscience. :evil:

[Withnail]

Well, for one a huge wooden structure was seen at the peak of Mt. Ararat, a strcuture that resembled an ancient ship. No one has been able to fully explore this ship, because weather has not permitted them do so. But there is an ancient boat at the top of a very high peak

Hurray! My one of two favorite things to see someone argue, that the flood could have happened as described in Genesis.

Kind of limited and lame, I know, but I just can't get it out unstuck of my craw.

How could anyone believe this? Only if their belief in the wholeness of their religious belief depended on it.

It's thinking backwards, Absoluttruth. A) The Bible is 100% true, therefor B) The Flood must have happened as described.

I've squawed about this on a few threads, so forgive me. But if you Build me Ark, as described in Genesis, I'll give you more serious consideration.

As it stands, It would seem you can't be taken very seriously.

I just read the first post on this thread. LOL!! Is this devolution?

[FruitandNut]

Apok, 'we' are both logical and illogical in our nature/ 'we' are rational and irrational. The mere fact that so many of us hold to theories without having complete knowledge indicates our irrational being. What ever our 'feelings' about the 'meaning of life' etc., a pure logical approach, usually, in itself can go thus far and no further for the moment, due to this incompleteness in our knowledge.

All too often logic is hijacked by people who seek to 'reinforce' their own brand of arguement as being somehow superior to other positions, without assiduously sticking to the rules.

For some people, what The Bible has written on its pages, must have been absolutely so.
For others, it is a case of what a load of rubbish.
For another group, they look at the pages of text and try to understand just how the stories may have come about in the context of the culture and mindset of the time. -Also when it was written down against the event itself and the problems and agendas of the translators etc.

(I find myself in the latter group, and tend to go with the Royal Navy ship builders' conclusion that a wooden Ark of the given dimensions would have broken up shortly after its 'launch'.) But that this does not mean to say that something that holds a similar significance could not have happened. I usually find that extreme attitudes in life can be problematic and naive.

ps. To hijack a Biblical quote, 'They have eyes and see not ..... ', this seems all too true for most of us.

pps. I do go along with Steve43872's inference that often we attempt to understand that which is 'beyond' us. There is a human impatience and a self driven bias to make things fit our percieved theories, often to the point of squeezing or manipulating the truth, or indeed, 'sweeping it under the carpet'.

ppps. Ref. Slipnish's posting numbered 68, in regard to Jesus only having 50% God DNA. It could be argued that His mother was 'specially' different from the rest of us, in as far as she would have to be without sin - 'The Immaculate Conception'. It could also be argued that if God is the ultimate creator of all, that we are all 100% God given DNA!!

pppps. Congrats Slipnish on being this month's DOM.

[Apokalupsis]

Apok, 'we' are both logical and illogical in our nature/ 'we' are rational and irrational.
We may engage in illogical behaviors...but "illogical" is not descriptive of man's nature. Also, this says nothing about your claim that it is "relative, not absolute".

The mere fact that so many of us hold to theories without having complete knowledge indicates our irrational being.
Complete knowledge is impossible. So it is logical to believe based upon available knowledge. Still says nothing about logic being relative, not absolute.

What ever our 'feelings' about the 'meaning of life' etc., a pure logical approach, usually, in itself can go thus far and no further for the moment, due to this incompleteness in our knowledge.
The claim isn't that logic is the answer to all things. There are things that logic cannot answer. But this is not the issue. The issue was, logic: relative or absolute. It has not been shown that it is "relative".

[mdsimpso]

Again I'm skipping the many responses, I'm at work and can't fake typing for that long.


I’m going to present my argument in symbolic form.

Jesus = J
God = G
Omniscient = O
Negation = ~
Premise = P
Conclusion = C
If (antecedent), then (consequent) = >
The Christian god exists = E
A. 1)
P1- G is O
P2- ~(J is O)
C1- ~(J is G)
A. 2)
P1- E>(J is G)
P2 (C1)- ~(J is G)
C2- ~E


One little issue, the J=G assumption, more accurately as a Christian it should be represented by set theory not linear logic form:

J=Jesus in Human Form
G=God
O=Omniscient
Negation = ~
Premise = P
Conclusion = C
If (antecedent), then (consequent) = >
The Christian god exists = E
'<'=Subset not less than(I can't find the actual character)

P1 - J < G
P2 - G = O
If ~G=O then ~J=O
but it is a logical fallacy to say:
If G=O then J=O.
as J is a subset.

I changed the original statement, so I can't say I contradicted your proof, but it's something to think about. Also, I realize that this isn't proof that the Christian God exists, it's just proof that the logicality of the Omniscient Christian God is not disprovable. I really should probably reword that, but I have a meeting.

[Slipnish]

We may engage in illogical behaviors...but "illogical" is not descriptive of man's nature. Also, this says nothing about your claim that it is "relative, not absolute".

Having been involved in social work for 15 years, I believe I could argue against that. Illogical describes a great many of the behaviors that I deal with on a daily basis.


The claim isn't that logic is the answer to all things. There are things that logic cannot answer. But this is not the issue. The issue was, logic: relative or absolute. It has not been shown that it is "relative".

But wouldn't logic be relative to the information that is known? You could make a perfectly logical choice, with current information, then receive new information that made the choice illogical.

How does that make logic absolute?

[mustang5]

[QUOTE=Booger]If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God, God is omniscient, God is restrained by logical bounds, and the Bible is inerrant, then I can show you that the Christian God does not exist-- If it can be shown that Jesus was not God, or that God is not omniscient or restrained by logical bounds, then the Christian God, by definition, does not exist.

I'll probably get my hand slapped by the moderator but it will be worth it.
What a pack of @#it. No luck is needed, not a chance you could convince a True christian of anything. Also I doubt anybody completely read your memo if it hit them the way it did me in the first couple of paragraphs.

[Anywien]

Well, for one a huge wooden structure was seen at the peak of Mt. Ararat, a strcuture that resembled an ancient ship. No one has been able to fully explore this ship, because weather has not permitted them do so. But there is an ancient boat at the top of a very high peak.

Also, when archaeologists go on scientific digs in mountain ranges, they often find strange things. For instance, one group of archaeologist found several different animals that could not have existed together in harmony at the top of a very high peak in South America. All of these animals were all jumbled together, as if they were all running together as one, in some sort of "inter-species" stampede.

After several more findings, tests, and observations, scientists concluded that many, many years ago, the animals all ran to the top of the mountain to get away from a flood that was drowning the entire region. There would be no other reason for such a large number of animals to be together on the exact same mountaintop.

This is not evidence, but i believe that it definitely supports scripture.

It's interesting that history and archaeology always supports the Bible. It would seem to me that if the Bible were false, with all its many stories and accounts, that at least ONE could be proven to be wrong. I've never heard or seen (and believe me, I have searched in the past) sound evidence of biblical fallacy.

If this is not evidence, how can it support the scripture accurately without just being somebody's opinion? You got any physical proof that this information is true? I read in a book I have at home that Noah was over 900 years old at the time of the "flood". How is that possible?

[Slipnish]

If this is not evidence, how can it support the scripture accurately without just being somebody's opinion? You got any physical proof that this information is true? I read in a book I have at home that Noah was over 900 years old at the time of the "flood". How is that possible?

I have it on good authority that "Geritol" was heavily supplied during the building phase of the ark. :p

[mustang5]

May I ask, "What is a slipnish?"

[Anywien]

What isn't a Slipnish?

[Slipnish]

May I ask, "What is a slipnish?"

This is entirely irrelevent to this thread. For those active in it, skip this as its just a long winded explanation for how I came up with the name Slipnish.

Its a nonsense word. To make a long story longer, and bore the crap out of everyone reading this, I'll tell you.

When I was in high school, back when we rode dinosaurs to school, and Moses was still in short pants, there was a group of very "cool" dudes who had their own band.

The band's name was Zagnog Cromlech. It became a running gag to find out what those words meant. Everyone in school took up the task, and the guys in the band were very pleased about their new found notoriety and much heightened "coolness" factor.

As luck would have it, I had a physics class with one of the band members. He sat directly behind me. We had some musical tastes in common and so, through luck and my magnetic geekness, a friendship was born.

After some time, I finally just asked him about.

After forswearing future progeny, blood, and promising to squash furry little animals when I got home, he told me the story.

Basically they were looking for a name and one of the guys was looking through a sales circular. He picked different syllables from different words and eventually they came to the much agreed upon and definately cool sounding, "ZAGNOG CROMLECH".

And a band was indeed born....

Years later, still clutching my geekness quite close, I was in the throes of a concerted effort to name an AD&D character who happened to be a gnome, thief/illusionist.

Remembering this overly long tale from high school, I sat down amidst a sheaf of newspapers, ads, and circulars and Slipnish Doleman was born. For the record, Doleman was not named after the pineapple, but came from 2 seperate and long forgotten things. It wasn't even until much later that I realized I had named my character after a pineapple.

In retrospect, I don't think he would enjoy knowing that, so let's not tell him, okay? ;)

Anyway, I played the character for years, and I liked the name so much, I kept it as a screen name.

And that is, as they say, a wrap.

You may return to your argument.

[mustang5]

Sorry I asked

[firesdeath]

If, as many Christians believe, Jesus is God, God is omniscient, God is restrained by logical bounds, and the Bible is inerrant, then I can show you that the Christian God does not exist-- If it can be shown that Jesus was not God, or that God is not omniscient or restrained by logical bounds, then the Christian God, by definition, does not exist.

I’m going to present my argument in symbolic form. ;)

*Insert Boogers entire first post* - RTShatto
I knew you made al that stuff up all the variables. stop trying to play with our heads ;?

[FruitandNut]

Logic and existence are 2 different matters. Logic is merely ordered thought, nothing more. It is used to learn, claim, refute, etc...about matters such as existence. Consider it a tool. It is an absolute tool. :)

Most people like to think they think logically, few people do, and even fewer can maintain such a momentum in the face of their own irrational nature.

[Fyshhed]

pps. I do go along with Steve43872's inference that often we attempt to understand that which is 'beyond' us. There is a human impatience and a self driven bias to make things fit our percieved theories, often to the point of squeezing or manipulating the truth, or indeed, 'sweeping it under the carpet'.

ppps. Ref. Slipnish's posting numbered 68, in regard to Jesus only having 50% God DNA. It could be argued that His mother was 'specially' different from the rest of us, in as far as she would have to be without sin - 'The Immaculate Conception'. It could also be argued that if God is the ultimate creator of all, that we are all 100% God given DNA!!
.

1) You just inadvertently confessed why you believe in God :D

2) To equate Mary with the purity of god himself is blasphemy. She was human, and therefore automatically cursed with "Original Sin." Watch out for those interpretations, theyre even messier than the Bible itself. :evil: