God is the Truth, the Way, the blah blah blah

[Marc]

Was just reminded of another little point in my debate with the missionaries.

At one point he made some comment about something being true because it came from god or something like that. I shot back How do you know that? Even if something did come from god how do you know it is true? How do we know that god doesn't lie to people on occasion? As expected his answer was the same as for every other point I had, faith.

That is an underlying premise of most religions. The word of god is true, end of story. They do not include the idea that god could lie to people for some reason, or (heaven forbid!) be wrong. Not like those old time mythologies where gods were petty, vindictive, could be tricked, and had fun fooling helpless little mortals.

Anyone else ever bring up this kind of point in a debate?

[Mercutio]

Check out the reader's digest debate on the soul. The link to it is (of course I opened this window before I prepared my answer) on this forum, in the "debating the soul" thread--third page, about halfway down there is a link (2, actually) to the debate. You will see some classics, and some fun rejoinders...

[arcticpenguin]

God is a liar. The Bible says so, and the Bible is never wrong.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1

Genesis 2:17


17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=3&division=div1

Genesis 3:1-7


1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Summary: God says eat the fruit and die. They eat, they do not die. God lied, the serpent told the truth.

It says so in the Bible.

[Ossai]

Marc
Here you go:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Not only does god cause some to believe lies but you don't have a choice because everyone is predestined.

Ossai

[Brown]

Originally posted by Marc
At one point he made some comment about something being true because it came from god or something like that. I shot back How do you know that? Even if something did come from god how do you know it is true? How do we know that god doesn't lie to people on occasion? As expected his answer was the same as for every other point I had, faith."Faith" is not an answer. If you ask, "Faith in what?" the answer will inevitably be "Faith in God, of course."

But in fact, what the Christian religion demands (or what the most popular versions of Christianity demand, anyway) is faith in people.

As Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason, (http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html)As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism- a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God.In particular, faith in people, rather than faith in God, is very prominent when religious claims to mystery, miracle and prophesy are made. In connection with miracles, for example, Paine says:Since, then, appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention.

Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief, (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show), it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.In other words, when a miracle is reported, a believer places his faith in a person, namely, the reporter of the miracle, that the report is true. When a miracle is reported, faith in God is not even an issue. And as to whether it is wise to place one's faith in a person who reports a miracle, Paine says:If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Marc
...............
Not like those old time mythologies where gods were petty, vindictive, could be tricked, and had fun fooling helpless little mortals.


Sounds just like the God in the Judeo/Christian Bible to me....

[Marc]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Sounds just like the God in the Judeo/Christian Bible to me....

Yea, but those old gods appeared as humans, and could occationally be beaten by humans.. not.. uhh... ok, there is the part where Abraham wrestles god and wins...:rolleyes:

[Brown]

Originally posted by Marc
Yea, but those old gods appeared as humans, and could occationally be beaten by humans.. not.. uhh... ok, there is the part where Abraham wrestles god and wins...Actually, that was Jacob, not Abraham (See Gen. 32), but the point is otherwise valid. There are other instances in the Bible in which the God of Abraham resembles the old pagan gods pretty closely.

[CWL]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
It says so in the Bible.

It ain't necessarily so,
It ain't necessarily so,
De t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in de Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.

[Yahweh]

From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html...
The Bible proves it

"In the Bible it says that..."

Most atheists feel that the Bible is of questionable accuracy, as it was written thousands of years ago by many authors who were recording oral tradition that existed many years before. Thus, any claimed 'truth' in it is of questionable legitimacy. This isn't to say that The Bible has no truth in it; simply that any truth must be examined before being accepted.

Many atheists also feel that because any passage is subject to "interpretation", any claim that a passage 'means' one thing and one thing only is not legitimate.

Note that this feeling tends to extend to other books.

It is also remarkable to many atheists that theists tend to ignore other equally plausible religious books in favor of those of their own religion.

--------------------------------------------------

Why I know that God exists

"I know from personal experience and prayer that God exists."

Just as many theists have personal evidence that the being they worship exists, so many atheists have personal evidence that such beings do not exist. That evidence varies from person to person.

Furthermore, without wishing to dismiss your evidence out of hand, many people have claimed all kinds of unlikely things -- that they have been abducted by UFOs, visited by the ghost of Elvis, and so on.

[Franko]

Was just reminded of another little point in my debate with the ATHEISTS/MATERIALISTS.

At one point he made some comment about something being true because it came from THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (TLOP) or something like that. I shot back How do you know that? Even if something did come from TLOP how do you know it is true? How do we know that TLOP doesn't lie to people on occasion? As expected his answer was the same as for every other point I had, faith.

That is an underlying premise of most BELIEF SYSTEMS/PHILISOPHICAL WORLDVIEWS. The word of TLOP/SCIENCE/SCIENTIST is true, end of story. They do not include the idea that TLOP/SCIENTIST could lie to people for some reason, or (heaven forbid!) be wrong. Not like those old time mythologies where TLOP was petty, vindictive, could be tricked, and had fun fooling helpless little mortals (with silly notions of “free will”).

Anyone else ever bring up this kind of point in a debate?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Anyone else ever bring up this kind of point in a debate? Yes, but everytime I've heard it brought up, it's usually acknowledgement that the scientist/theory/principle is only tentively held to be correct or true. Usually it's only non-scientists who get it into their heads that scientists never admit they can be wrong.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Franko
Not like those old time mythologies where TLOP was petty, vindictive, could be tricked, and had fun fooling helpless little mortals (with silly notions of “free will”).



Since when was there a myth where the laws of physics themselves could be tricked?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts

Since when was there a myth where the laws of physics themselves could be tricked? I think he's using the acronym "TLOP" interchangable with word "god" or "gods", maybe?:con2:

[Doorknob]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
God is a liar. The Bible says so, and the Bible is never wrong.

Summary: God says eat the fruit and die. They eat, they do not die. God lied, the serpent told the truth.

It says so in the Bible.

Are Adam and Eve alive today?

Would they be if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit?

[Pyrian]

Doorknob:
Are Adam and Eve alive today?

Would they be if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit?"the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

I don't see how "today" is the issue at hand - even if Adam and Eve would have been immortal, which isn't my understanding anyway.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Was just reminded of another little point in my debate with the ATHEISTS/MATERIALISTS.

At one point he made some comment about something being true because it came from THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (TLOP) or something like that. I shot back How do you know that? Even if something did come from TLOP how do you know it is true? How do we know that TLOP doesn't lie to people on occasion?
Science is revisable and falsifyable. But it is very unlikely a fundamental flaw in one of the Laws of Physics could be false (for instance, Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the Laws of Thermodynamics).

The simple fact that one of the laws of physics could be wrong (if you want to think about from an Actualist point of view) is not a reason to deny them, especially considering that there are no known incidences where any Laws of Physics has been broken (lets face it, the Laws of Physics has a good track record).

As expected his answer was the same as for every other point I had, faith.
Come on, you cant possibly believe that.

I have no faith in science (whereas faith is defined as "belief without evidence). Every scientific fact and all Laws of Physics can be tested and proven with absolute certainty. I dont believe objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by another force "just because", I believe it because all empirical observations and scientific scrutiny in the world prove with absolute certainty that all objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by another force.

Faith has no place in science.

That is an underlying premise of most BELIEF SYSTEMS/PHILISOPHICAL WORLDVIEWS. The word of TLOP/SCIENCE/SCIENTIST is true, end of story.
I think it is reasonable to expect a scientists belief systems/philosophical worldviews to be well-informed.

They do not include the idea that TLOP/SCIENTIST could lie to people for some reason, or (heaven forbid!) be wrong.
Come on, attack the science, not the man. It is absolutely absurd to believe that these scientists would "lie". That would destroy the credibility of the scientist, it would reflect badly on him, those lies would be quickly discovered. "They could be lying" is a very evasive and very fuzzy "counterargument", it has no substance in comtemporary logic.

Yes, there is a chance these scientists could be wrong. But I think when scientific scrutiny from 1000s of other labs and physicists declare the same data and conclusions, those "they could be wrong" possibilities become increasingly remote and negligible.

Not like those old time mythologies where TLOP was petty, vindictive, could be tricked, and had fun fooling helpless little mortals (with silly notions of “free will”).
Silly notions of "free will"? Are you suggesting I am not in control of my own actions? I am not an automoton, I am aware of my own actions. I am not just a series of chemical reactions, I am just a bit more.

While its true, all my actions and thoughts can be widdled down in terms of matter and physical phenomena, it is entirely absurd to believe free will and the Laws of Physics are mutually exclusive.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I think he's using the acronym "TLOP" interchangable with word "god" or "gods", maybe?:con2:

Yes, that is my understanding. TLOP emanates from God - is the toolbox God uses control everything - or something like that.

Personally I think there may be a slight confusion/disagreement as to what "the laws of physics" actually are. The view that these set of "laws" are the toolbox of God requires that one looks upon them as being some kind of defined force. If one looks upon the laws of physics as simply being the properties of energy/matter - there for us to discover and describe best we can - the toolbox theory is less obvious, IMHO.

But I think we've been over this already...

[Franko]

Yahway:
Science is revisable and falsifyable. But it is very unlikely a fundamental flaw in one of the Laws of Physics could be false (for instance, Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the Laws of Thermodynamics).

The simple fact that one of the laws of physics could be wrong (if you want to think about from an Actualist point of view) is not a reason to deny them, especially considering that there are no known incidences where any Laws of Physics has been broken (lets face it, the Laws of Physics has a good track record).

Sure … but that was my entire point.

If you want to understand how a “religious person” really thinks you have to understand things the way they do. In the same sense that you believe the laws of physics are inviolate, they believe that “God” (their name for TLOP) is also inviolate.

For an Atheist to question God’s omnipotence makes about as much sense to them as someone questioning You about TLOP’s omnipotence.

I have no faith in science (whereas faith is defined as "belief without evidence). Every scientific fact and all Laws of Physics can be tested and proven with absolute certainty.

If that is the case then prove to me with absolute certainty that “the matter” exist.

Prove with complete certainty that I am not a figment of your imagination.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
God is a liar. The Bible says so, and the Bible is never wrong.



Not only is he a liar, he's pretty stupid for an omniscient being - having created these 2 humans to observe, he can't even watch over them adequately, doesn't have a clue what the hell they are up to, and can't even find them when they are hiding.

If you want a game of hide and seek - leave god out of it!

[Franko]

Deetee:
Not only is he [God] a liar, he's pretty stupid for an omniscient being - having created these 2 humans to observe, he can't even watch over them adequately, doesn't have a clue what the hell they are up to, and can't even find them when they are hiding.

God (the Architect or Progenitor) was a Solipsist. He had no idea what individuality would be like until he experienced it.

You aren’t born Omniscient, and neither is God. You have to evolve that trait with Time and Experience.

Hypothetically speaking of course. ;)

[Franko]

CWL said:
If one looks upon the laws of physics as simply being the properties of energy/matter - there for us to discover and describe best we can - the toolbox theory is less obvious, IMHO.

Yeah, but the question remains the same – doesn’t it?

Why does matter/energy have these properties in the first place, and since ALL matter has these properties, why is only some matter/energy “alive”?

[Deetee]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
God is a liar. The Bible says so, and the Bible is never wrong.



Not only is he a liar, he's pretty stupid for an omniscient being - having created these 2 humans to observe, he can't even watch over them adequately, doesn't have a clue what the hell they are up to, and can't even find them when they are hiding.

If you want a game of hide and seek - leave god out of it!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Marc
That is an underlying premise of most religions. The word of god is true, end of story. They do not include the idea that god could lie to people for some reason, or (heaven forbid!) be wrong. That's pretty much the concept behind faith; an unquestioning belief. Besides, to a fundy, a God who lies is a truly terrifying thought, isn't it?

[jan]

It is similair to the fallacy of Pascal's bet. It is supposed that god either doesn't exist or sends the believers to heaven and the rest to hell. The argument sounds less convincing if you allow the additional possibility that god sends the believers to hell (punishing them for being that naïve, or because god has a weird sense of humour, or any other reason).

To be fair, if an atheist is discussing with a believer, it is possible that both of them are wrong, but usually it is an implicit premise that one of them is right and they should find out who it is. If nobody ever claims that god exists, but sometimes lie, than it is quite natural a beliefer doesn't address this case.

Too bad the bible tells us that god lies...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's pretty much the concept behind faith; an unquestioning belief. Besides, to a fundy, a God who lies is a truly terrifying thought, isn't it?

Yes, the fundies often quote God where he says he cannot lie. They don't seem to realize He could be lying about not being able to lie.

[Franko]

It is similar to the fallacy of Pascal's bet (and rooting for the loss). It is supposed that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS either doesn't exist or sends the believers to CEASE TO EXIST and the rest to CEASE TO EXIST. The argument sounds less convincing if you allow the additional possibility that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS sends the believers to CEASE TO EXIST (punishing them for being that naïve, or because THE LAWS OF PHYSICS has a weird sense of humor, or any other reason).

To be fair, if a deist is discussing with a believer, it is possible that both of them are wrong, but usually it is an implicit premise that one of them is right and they should find out who it is. If nobody ever claims that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS exists, but sometimes lie, than it is quite natural a beliefer doesn't address this case.

Too bad the MATERIALISTS tell us that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS lies ... (Determinism is obviously true yet actually have “free will”/ There are no ultimate consequences for our actions because we all meet the same Fate when we eventually cease to exist) …

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts
Yes, the fundies often quote God where he says he cannot lie. They don't seem to realize He could be lying about not being able to lie. Interesting. Sort of a weird varient of the Lier's Paradox (i.e. "I always lie")

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Have you noticed that the rephrasing below makes absolutelly NO SENSE?

Originally posted by Franko
It is similar to the fallacy of Pascal's bet (and rooting for the loss). It is supposed that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS either doesn't exist or sends the believers to CEASE TO EXIST and the rest to CEASE TO EXIST. The argument sounds less convincing if you allow the additional possibility that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS sends the believers to CEASE TO EXIST (punishing them for being that naïve, or because THE LAWS OF PHYSICS has a weird sense of humor, or any other reason).

To be fair, if a deist is discussing with a believer, it is possible that both of them are wrong, but usually it is an implicit premise that one of them is right and they should find out who it is. If nobody ever claims that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS exists, but sometimes lie, than it is quite natural a beliefer doesn't address this case.

Too bad the MATERIALISTS tell us that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS lies ... (Determinism is obviously true yet actually have “free will”/ There are no ultimate consequences for our actions because we all meet the same Fate when we eventually cease to exist) …

[Franko]

L.R.:
Have you noticed that the rephrasing below makes absolutelly NO SENSE?

It's funny you say that, because I didn't think it made any sense before i did the rewording.

[Fun2BFree]

too bad (or thankfully, really) that Franko's inability to understand the sense of something is not evidence of it's sensibility...replacing God with TLOP is easy to do on the keyboard...it just makes no sense in any logical undertanding of TLOP or God for that matter....they are not interchangeable except they can both be typed.

[Franko]

it just makes no sense in any logical undertanding of TLOP or God for that matter....they are not interchangeable except they can both be typed.

God = The entity or force which created and governs the universe.

TLOP = The entity or force which created and governs the universe.

I don’t know … if there is a difference you will have to explain it too me. Try and be as concise as possible. Should be an easy task if the two terms are really as unlike as you imply …

[Pyrian]

Franko:
It's funny you say that, because I didn't think it made any sense before i did the rewording.You're only indicting yourself, I'm afraid.

[Furious]

God = The entity or force which created and governs the universe.
TLOP = The entity or force which created and governs the universe.

Hmm, you can define them this way, but it is not how most people define TLOP.

TLOP simply describes the forces in the universe as observed, for example, gravity.

Most people that believe in God and people that don't believe in God believe in gravity (the attraction of two bodies of mass). We obey gravity

The difference is, people that believe in God believe that God made it that way and that two objects falling to each other is God's will (a supernatural force) and therefore, unknowable in the natural world.

Those that don't believe in God have no fricking idea where the attraction comes from, but don't automatically assume it is unknowable in the natural world.

Very subtle, and Franko might say superficial (though I don't want to straw man him), difference.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
[B]

Yeah, but the question remains the same – doesn’t it?
I'm sure there is a question here but I don't get it (sorry). "Doesn't it" what?

Why does matter/energy have these properties in the first place, and since ALL matter has these properties, why is only some matter/energy “alive”?
As far as we know only certain constallations of matter/matter give rise to "life". I would therefore agree insofar as the question is why only certain constellations of matter/energy are "alive". Subtle, but important difference perhaps? :)

[Pyrian]

Franko:
God = The entity or force which created and governs the universe.
TLOP = The entity or force which created and governs the universe.God = The sentient entity which created and governs the universe.
TLOP = The laws that govern the universe.

I love how Franko writes equalities that bear no resemblance to the definitions of terms and then bases arguments on them.

[Upchurch]

Personally, I would describe the laws of physics as a property of the universe rather than something that "governs".

[Pyrian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Personally, I would describe the laws of physics as a property of the universe rather than something that "governs". Works for me.

[Fun2BFree]

Governor=the person who governs the affairs of a state
The Laws Of the State (TLOS)= the rules by which a state is governed
Governor does not equal TLOS

[jan]

Strawberry marmelade = a red being
the sun at dawn = a red being

Therefore, "strawberry marmelade" and "the sun at dawn" can be used interchangeable. They mean the same.

[Upchurch]

apples = round fruit
oranges = round fruit.

Anyone care to compare apples and oranges?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
apples = round fruit
oranges = round fruit.

Anyone care to compare apples and oranges?
It's been done. (http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It's been done. (http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html) :roll: :roll: :roll:

That's a riot!

[Dancing David]

The buddha asked people to examine his ideas and methods and make the decision on thier own. I guess that they make crummy missionaries.:)