The beginning

[Smegma]

Depends how you define 'screwy.' But that's merely a matter of perception now.

No, there are lots of paradoxes.

That's entirely different. In other things, information isn't revealed to us, we have to split atoms and dive hundreds of feet into the water and reach terminal velocity to bring back moon rocks. We can actively find the information, and learning information helps us learn more information. We don't have to sit around waiting for someone to decide to tell it to us, something which may or may not be directly related to another piece of information.

Who said that God was feeding us the information?

That's what you said. In saying that, you assume that we can't.

I never said god could be disproved, but I said that that lack of disprovability (if you'll forgive my use of a made-up word) made it scientifically unreliable. Of course, on a basis of faith, that doesn't really matter.

Yea, thats already been established many many times.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I'd also like to point out that the early Bible stories use very literal language- in Hebrew. With all the newfangled New Americans and King Jameses, a lot of original meaning, but also clarity, has been lost.

Some argue that God's "7 day creation" before man was introduced could be a metaphor for 7 million years, or seven billion, or even just a lot of time (7 was also a metaphor or symbol for infinity).

But the Jewish word used was 'yom,' which is literally a 24 hour day. That's how it's used everywhere else throughout the Bible. It also goes by first day, second day, third day, one at a time, not "seven," so it could be summarily interpreted as infinity.

Either all instances of yom are metaphors for expansive amounts of time, or the Genisis 7 yom creation is literally 7 Earth days. There is no metaphor.

Something to consider.

That, and it's hard to imagine the plants (Day 3) surviving for millions of years without the sun (Day 4) or pollination by insects (Day 6).

Also, on the subject of translation in Genisis, something fascinating.

The word "Elohim," is often mistranslated as "god." But that seems unlikely because Elohim is a plural word. And according to the original text, the "Elohim created heaven and earth" (forget the precise verse).

Elohim comes from the root "to be powerful," and is more literally translated as "the great ones, the prominent ones, the majesties, the judges, the mighty ones," etc. A singular "majestic/mighty/prominent" one would be an elohah.

Logically, wouldn't god be called an elohah?

Remember the concept of the Trinity? This may have something to do with that (John 1 mentions that Jesus was with God in the beginning), or it may just be referring to the angels.

[Mangled*]

Vagueness. It's vague if God answers prayers or not.

It doesn't have to be.  If you pray for a miraculous occurrence, such as healing from cancer (sans chemotherapy, etc.), and it happens, there's some evidence that prayer is effective.  Obviously if you use it in trivial situations, like your dice example, any conclusions will be trivial as well.

The dice was an example, it's irrelevant what I use as an example. Everything has statistical chance.

I used dice as an example because they represent chance at its most basic form to make it easier to understand that in any given scenario there is chance which is affected by everything that influences the scenario in a physical manner... For example.. it's unlikely that I'll slip on a banana skin in a room with carpet because of friction.

Just as the influences on a dice are alot more complex... which way up it was facing before thrown, what surface it's being rolled on, what angle and speed it's travelling at. Is it tumbling through the air or  is it lacking in rotational movement? What is the dice made of and where is its center of gravity?

Similar would apply to a cancer patients prognosis... are they fit? do they smoke? do they have a good diet? is there a family history of it? has he been exposed to harmful radiation or chemicals?

Physical influences determine chance. Chance exists regardless of God or not. And there's no proof of his intervention because the outcome was a possibility to begin with. And how can we possibly know the full extent of the scenario we're trying to calculate anyway?

[Svirin Kerath]

No, there are lots of paradoxes.

Care to share?

Who said that God was feeding us the information?

It's sort of the definition of Revelation.

Remember the concept of the Trinity? This may have something to do with that (John 1 mentions that Jesus was with God in the beginning), or it may just be referring to the angels.

Yes, there is the concept of the Trinity, but it is divided into specific roles. The Spirit is barely mentioned, if at all, until very late in the Bible, after which its role seems to be to strengthen the faith of Christians. Jesus is mentioned as the Messiah, his role is pretty obvious. It was god's role to basically create and maintain the universe, to suggest angels helped would imply that angels have powers of creation, and that god actually needed the help which, being omnipotent, seems unlikely. Also, elohah is used in Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the [elohah] made the earth and the heavens." and it is used throughout the "second creation story." One that was probably written separately from the first.

I've just learned this recently, and am wondering what the deal is.

It doesn't have to be.  If you pray for a miraculous occurrence, such as healing from cancer (sans chemotherapy, etc.), and it happens, there's some evidence that prayer is effective.  Obviously if you use it in trivial situations, like your dice example, any conclusions will be trivial as well.

That's not evidence of anything. It would be evidence if you had a controlled case study of 1000 individuals, at least, and half of them prayed, and the other half did not, and then the results were analyzed. What you're using is basically "post hoc ergo propter hoc," a fallacy that contends that, because something happened after something else, it was caused by it.

There is much more evidence for the placebo effect, I should mention, though.

[Smegma]

Care to share?

EDIT:
Fine
Galileo's Paradox, Dirac Paradox, Berkeley's Paradox...

It's sort of the definition of Revelation.

So, before proving God you are going to use his book as an axiom?

[Svirin Kerath]

Nope, if you don't know it go learn. Thats the point.

Hahah. That's a cop-out, and shows a decided lack of confidence.

So, before proving God you are going to use his book as an axiom?

Revelation:
1
   a. The act of revealing or disclosing.
   b. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.
2. Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth.

Divine means from god, so any Revelation whatsoever must come from god. I'm just using my..language, I guess? Or is that not ok?

[Smegma]

Editted my above post, plus I never stated that God gives/withholds such things. So, you took this assumption which is not true (in my frame while writing the posts).

[Svirin Kerath]

Editted my above post, plus I never stated that God gives/withholds such things. So, you took this assumption which is not true (in my frame while writing the posts).

You actually suggested that he wasn't the sole source of revelation, which is countered by the definition of revelation itself.

All of those paradoxes come in with infinite numbers, and with assumptions that they can be manipulated the same way as finite numbers. Sure, it's screwy, but it's unlikely you'll ever need to buy an infinite amount of bread, or that you'll have an infinite amount of rocket fuel. There is nothing really, truly infinite except the universe itself, which is to say that empty space is infinite. Essentially, infinity doesn't really exist, so it makes sense that it would be hard to quantify, but when it is made into finite numbers, that is, things which exist, math works pretty well.

[SDFilm]

What I don't understand how people can pick one god over another. You could worship the Christian God, but there are also the gods of countless other religions to worship. So in the end it's just a matter of personal preference/indoctrinated upbringing that determines who is "the real god".

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

What I don't understand how people can pick one god over another. You could worship the Christian God, but there are also the gods of countless other religions to worship. So in the end it's just a matter of personal preference/indoctrinated upbringing that determines who is "the real god".

No, they're all the "real God."  How is Allah different from the Christian God?

[Svirin Kerath]

What I don't understand how people can pick one god over another. You could worship the Christian God, but there are also the gods of countless other religions to worship. So in the end it's just a matter of personal preference/indoctrinated upbringing that determines who is "the real god".

No, they're all the "real God."  How is Allah different from the Christian God?

Allah? What about Shiva, Tyr, Buddha, and the spirits of Shintoism? What invalidates Apollo or Isis?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

What I don't understand how people can pick one god over another. You could worship the Christian God, but there are also the gods of countless other religions to worship. So in the end it's just a matter of personal preference/indoctrinated upbringing that determines who is "the real god".

No, they're all the "real God."  How is Allah different from the Christian God?

Allah? What about Shiva, Tyr, Buddha, and the spirits of Shintoism? What invalidates Apollo or Isis?

Alright, let me rephase that.  Almost every monotheistic religion worships what is basically the same God (and Buddha was a person, IIRC).

[SDFilm]

What I don't understand how people can pick one god over another. You could worship the Christian God, but there are also the gods of countless other religions to worship. So in the end it's just a matter of personal preference/indoctrinated upbringing that determines who is "the real god".

No, they're all the "real God."  How is Allah different from the Christian God?

Allah? What about Shiva, Tyr, Buddha, and the spirits of Shintoism? What invalidates Apollo or Isis?

Alright, let me rephase that.  Almost every monotheistic religion worships what is basically the same God (and Buddha was a person, IIRC).

So how does that contradict my post?

[Svirin Kerath]

What I don't understand how people can pick one god over another. You could worship the Christian God, but there are also the gods of countless other religions to worship. So in the end it's just a matter of personal preference/indoctrinated upbringing that determines who is "the real god".

No, they're all the "real God."  How is Allah different from the Christian God?

Allah? What about Shiva, Tyr, Buddha, and the spirits of Shintoism? What invalidates Apollo or Isis?

Alright, let me rephase that.  Almost every monotheistic religion worships what is basically the same God (and Buddha was a person, IIRC).

I'm aware he was real. What gave the impression I wasn't?

There is a group that believes Buddha was something like a prophet, or just a very wise man, and there is another that believes he was a god.

And why do only monotheistic religions count?

[Mangled*]

Stories > Legend > Folklore > Mythology > Religion

For instance...

Ancient cave paintings of animals > Animal deities (Africa, Asia) > Animal Mythology (Egyptian) > Human based Mythology (Greek mythology, Hinduism, Judaism {humanoid deities}) and then Judaism > Islam, Christianity > Mormonism, Scientology.

[KorrupT MerC]

And why do only monotheistic religions count?

Because monotheistic religions only allow the worship of that one particular god.

If you have more than one god that rule wont apply.

[Smegma]

All of those paradoxes come in with infinite numbers, and with assumptions that they can be manipulated the same way as finite numbers. Sure, it's screwy, but it's unlikely you'll ever need to buy an infinite amount of bread, or that you'll have an infinite amount of rocket fuel. There is nothing really, truly infinite except the universe itself, which is to say that empty space is infinite. Essentially, infinity doesn't really exist, so it makes sense that it would be hard to quantify, but when it is made into finite numbers, that is, things which exist, math works pretty well.

WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT! DAMMIT!

If you are a mathematician, there is truly something infinite.

[Svirin Kerath]

And why do only monotheistic religions count?

Because monotheistic religions only allow the worship of that one particular god.

If you have more than one god that rule wont apply.

What I meant was, why did he only address monotheistic religions? SDFilm brought up a good point, what about all the other gods? I brought up some of those gods, and it turns out some of them don't count because they're not from monotheistic religions. Why?

All of those paradoxes come in with infinite numbers, and with assumptions that they can be manipulated the same way as finite numbers. Sure, it's screwy, but it's unlikely you'll ever need to buy an infinite amount of bread, or that you'll have an infinite amount of rocket fuel. There is nothing really, truly infinite except the universe itself, which is to say that empty space is infinite. Essentially, infinity doesn't really exist, so it makes sense that it would be hard to quantify, but when it is made into finite numbers, that is, things which exist, math works pretty well.

WHICH WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT! DAMMIT!

If you are a mathematician, there is truly something infinite.

..But not in reality. I'm talking practical, real terms here.

Although this might be considered philosophical evidence against an infinite god...

God made the universe, and he made all the physics and math in it. Philosophically, there's no need for god to create a system of physics outside of his own, especially if his own is as perfect as possible anyhow. This is sometimes used for a reason some "miracles" can be explained scientifically, that god created physics as we know it to support a real miraculous event, or miraculous as we would understand it at the time until we learned to explain it later. If a miracle was truly outside the realm of physics, it's likely a miracle would rend some kind of interdimensional hole.

Anyway, the realm of physics is dominated by math, but finite math. It only governs things which exist. A god could then be expected to ascribe to its own laws of physics, simply because they are so perfect.

Yet if, when infinity is introduced, physics (rooted in math) is skewed, that means infinity can't really exist. So, that would mean a god using its own perfect physics was not infinite, but finite. Granted, it could be extremely vast, potentially measurable in numbers that fill pages and pages with zeros, but finite nonetheless.

[Smegma]

In some cases, that is true, yet that wasn't the point of showing the oddness of infinity!

[Veritas]

There is nothing really, truly infinite except the universe itself, which is to say that empty space is infinite.

Buh?
The universe is of finite size.

Philosophically, there's no need for god to create a system of physics outside of his own, especially if his own is as perfect as possible anyhow.

If God made imperfect beings such as ourself, I see no reason why he wouldn't place them in an imperfect universe to match.