Official Religious Debate Thread

[excruciator]

How convenient. We can't understand it therefore don't question it.

Even though I disagree, its not what he means by it.

Just sounds like something said out of convenience.
You don't understand it therefore don't bother? What kind of answer is that.

Then what exactly did he mean by that, other than you can never know therefore you are wrong.

[Smegma]

Then what exactly did he mean by that, other than you can never know therefore you are wrong.

First off, you can not know and still be right. Second, most things we say are purely out of convenience. Third is that he means to be describing how a certain definition of God can exist.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

And God does indeed restrict himself to the laws of logic.

we can say that we cannot comprehend a God...

How convenient. We can't understand it therefore don't question it.

Question away.  How would you describe a God unbounded by logic? If God does exist, does it make more sense for logic to govern him or for him to be completely free of its restrictions? Can YOU comprehend the latter?

I'm all for discussing this.  In fact, I thought that was the point of a debate: someone tells their side or their beliefs, and other people talk about it and question it.

[Smegma]

Can YOU comprehend the latter?

Yes

[excruciator]

First off, you can not know and still be right.

A shot in the dark, sure. But you'll also never know whether you are right or not.

Second, most things we say are purely out of convenience.

Right, but dodging the bullets everytime by saying you don't know seems to defy the point of a discussion

Third is that he means to be describing how a certain definition of God can exist.

So many things cannot be known yet those that can be are always in favor of the God side.
Arbitrary.

[excruciator]

Question away.  How would you describe a God unbounded by logic? If God does exist, does it make more sense for logic to govern him or for him to be completely free of its restrictions? Can YOU comprehend the latter?

But I don't think God is unbounded by logic. Hell I don't even think God exist.

If I asked the liar's paradox to God, he still can't wiggle out of it.

Assuming he is willing to answer the question. Not saying "ohh you don't know"

[Smegma]

So many things cannot be known yet those that can be are always in favor of the God side. Arbitrary.

He never said that, he was merely justifying a point.

Right, but dodging the bullets everytime by saying you don't know seems to defy the point of a discussion

I agree

A shot in the dark, sure. But you'll also never know whether you are right or not.

Really? Well, you might think you are right.

[excruciator]

He never said that, he was merely justifying a point.

You don't have to say sarcasm to express sarcasm.

Really? Well, you might think you are right.

I'm I truly right though...

[Smegma]

So am I

[excruciator]

So am I

The point is, whatever you or I think does not matter. Right or not does not care about what we think.

Do you even believe in God? I've never seen you make a clear statement about anything.

[Smegma]

Do you even believe in God?

Out of convenience I do.

[excruciator]

Do you even believe in God?

Out of convenience I do.

It does help explain a lot of unsolved problems.

[Smegma]

Such as?

[N. Escalona]

Omnipotent is a perfectly fine word. Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible; in other words, anything that is not self-contradictory.

[Luke Strife]

In agreeance with Escalona: Well to refer to an earlier point, God is supposedly logical, so therefore he can't be self contradictory, right?

If you're self contradicting, then that isn't logical.

--

And just so you know, I don't believe in God simply because I don't have a reason to. Although I'm not so close minded to say there is NOTHING bigger than us, I would not label it to be God, or -a- God.

In my own opinion, religions can be viewed as a bunch of labels about certain inexplainable things that certain individuals feel that they need to justify. I don't detest religion, I am fairly tolerant of its presence, I just don't agree with it. Especially people who try to convert. I wouldn't know what I'd call myself, but it's certainly not religious.

[excruciator]

Such as?

Any question can be answer by saying "God did it, don't ask me how he did it, because I'll never understand"

Omnipotent is a perfectly fine word. Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. God can do anything that is not intrinsically impossible; in other words, anything that is not self-contradictory.

Omnipotence is capacity to do everything. Not somethings can be done and somethings can't.

Funny how Calvinists keeps changing the definition God and what he did. I mean come on, if God really existed, shouldn't be right the first time?

It seems to me that God is just a concept made up by the people who believe it, because what it is, even what it did changes with different people. If he did create the everything and did communicate with humans, All this science stuff should be known a long time ago.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Any question can be answer by saying "God did it, don't ask me how he did it, because I'll never understand"

Ask a three year old why his parents won't let him play in the street.  Ask him why they feed him certain foods and prevent him from eating other foods.  Ask him why they only let him watch so much TV, or why certain channels aren't allowed.  What could he say? That three year old can't comprehend why his parents act the way they do, even though what they do is logical from their end, and is in his best interests.  He doesn't have the capacity to understand that.  It's not an easy way out for him to say, "I don't know;" it's just how things are.  And I'm sure that even you can understand how much broader the gap would be between us and a God, should one exist.  There's just no way we'll understand him, despite how much you may claim we should be able to (and that certainly seems to be what you're implying).

For another example, consider quantum mechanics.  Could you explain them to me in their entirety? Sure, you know some things, and you could probably read certain books and find out more.  But I don't think you'll ever come close to fully understanding all the ins and outs of that branch of physics, even though it's grounded in the physical world.

One final example, inspired by the scientific nature of the last one.  Show a caveman a computer and ask him to explain how it works (not what it does; why it does).  What's he going to say? What option does he have besides, "I can't comprehend that and I probably will never be able to comprehend it"? Is it "convenient"? Is he opting for the easy way out? Or is that just how things are?

Omnipotence is capacity to do everything. Not somethings can be done and somethings can't.

Except certain tasks are meaningless in their natural context.  For example, let's say I asked you what shade of red the forum backgrounds are.  You would say, "It's not red at all; it's blue, and therefore your question cannot be answered."  You don't lack the capacity to describe color; it's just that such a description doesn't apply in that particular case.

It seems to me that God is just a concept made up by the people who believe it, because what it is, even what it did changes with different people. If he did create the everything and did communicate with humans, All this science stuff should be known a long time ago.

"If God existed, we should know everything."  Oh yeah, great logic there.  Besides, let's assume that God really did explain everything to the first man.  You're expecting a lot out of humans who can create Baghdad batteries and Antikythera devices and Damascus steel and Great Libraries of Alexandria thousands of years ago and still lose all that knowledge.

Also, do you see how you're making assumptions about what the existence of a God would imply? Do you see how you're trying to define him, trying to describe what he would do? And yet, you take exception to religious people doing something similar.  "How can you say God is restricted by logic? How can you say God is outside of time?" What's the deal with that?

[echo_trail]

Don't people get tired of believing in something so unbelievable? Or does it build charater?

[excruciator]

Let me say it again law, Omnipotence is capacity to do everything, including those crazy ones and meaningless ones. If not, then it's not omnipotent.

Do you agree, if I wrote a book, and you asked me about it, I would be able to tell you everything about that book. And if you spread that information precisely the way it was told, then there is only going to be, well one description of that book.

Lets think backwards. There was a time when people believed crazy things that are wrong and supposedly God created. And there are a lot of these crazy crap. If God actually told them everything, then there wouldn't be so many version of stuff.

So it's either God didn't say anything(unlikely) or we just didn't care about whatever the mystical figure said(unlikely), or it simply never existed(very likely, in my opinion)

And..sure.. If God told us stuff, we just "happen" to lose all the important information. And save the mundane.

Ask a 3yo...

I think things you don't know is because you simply can't, because it does not exist. Not because is beyond one's comprehension.

And certainly, even if it is impossible to comprehend, there is not reason to try and understand it.(you don't know if it's understandable or not)

[GSx_Major]

Ask a three year old why his parents won't let him play in the street.

Three year old children are not incapable of comprehending that you can get hurt by a car.

Show a caveman a computer and ask him to explain how it works (not what it does; why it does).  What's he going to say?

See the irony here?

(He would say magic... God.)