I'm not saying that, i'm saying thats why you can't understand Christians following God so seemingly blindly.

If God exists soley in the supernatural realm, then there's no problem. If he does nothing but exist quite happily on his own, there's no problem. There is no dilemma. (God creating the Universe and doing nothing thereafter is called deism. It avoids a lot of the logical dilemmas.)

But as soon as he interferes with our Universe, whether by influence or control, then he is in the natural realm. God is no longer 'outside' or 'beyond' the natural world, he has acted on our world and we are able to observe it (just like we can observe the result of me nudging the billiard ball even if the nudge itself comes from 'beyond' the billiard table). And that's when we're back at the dilemma of percieved 'free will'.


It is also worth noting that this exact discussion is about 300 years old.
Contintental philosophers prior to and during the Enlightenment first questioned and explored the century-old religious dogma, just like this, and had a profound effect upon approach to thought (the various dilemmas of 'prayer' were actually brought up well before then, 900 AD or thereabouts, but this sort of stuff was never followed through until the Enlightenment).
America, however, was rather too busy with civil wars and thatwhat and never experienced the philosophical progress of the Enlightenment. So America isn't exactly in the 8th century, but isn't much beyond the 18th.

God just hates black people.

Kayne West, minister.

Kanye for pope!

Christians (at least myself) believe that God is part of (and has effect/influence - whatever you want to call it) the supernatural and the natural realms.

Yes, and it's the 'natural realm' God that causes the logical dilemmas.


When God is within the natural realm, you cannot use the "Oh God is so complex and big and you're so flawed and imperfect that you'll never understand God so there's no point even trying to think about it!" line. I don't need to understand God, I just need to understand nature.


But anyway, as someone will probably point out, this has very little to do with the matter at hand. You were just trying to sidestep genuine philosophical dilemmas with a cheap "oh it's not worth rationalising, shut up and accept god", which isn't going to work here.

I doubt he's Catholic

God for pope!

Personally, i would find that trying to rationalize a being that is omnipotent, and omniscient, and exists on a whole different level than us humans would be pointless. Whatever God "is" it is something that logically, we cannot fully comprehend. There is no reference, no context to place him into. Trying to apply 3-D rules to God seems fruitless to me.


Allow me to make a small edit here. I should have said "fully comprehend." Obviously, with the Bible there is some measure of understanding of God i.e. he created the world, yadda yadda yadda.

Hahahaha. If no one can comprehend god, then there is no reason for him to exist.

What? Because a person doesn't understand something, there's no reason for it to exist?

We can't hear, see, smell, touch, or taste god. So there's no reason for him to exist. That's more what I meant by comprehend.

Mmmm.. roasted god...

I bet roasted god tastes like those roasted nuts at the mall.

Wow, I agree with Wolfy for once. I don't understand German; does that mean it doesn't exist??

But you can see written german, hear people speaking german. You can't say the same about god.

Well, you can't observe an atom. Most knowledge we have has been infered from expirements. No one has touched, smelled, tasted, seen, or heard an atom before, yet most physicists will tell you they're there. Are you saying atoms don't exist?

No. As you say you can draw conclusions from test which yield results which support the atomic theory. You cannot do that with god.

Outta curiosity, why am I defending God if I'm really atheist?

[QUOTE=Ifrit Zero]Well, you can't observe an atom. Most knowledge we have has been infered from expirements. No one has touched, smelled, tasted, seen, or heard an atom before, yet most physicists will tell you they're there. Are you saying atoms don't exist?[/QUOTE]


We can see atoms. Electron microscope FTW.

[QUOTE=Ifrit Zero]Outta curiosity, why am I defending God if I'm really atheist? :confused:[/QUOTE]

You don't comprehend your stance. You don't exist! :p

No; then his stance may as well not exist.

[QUOTE=Ifrit Zero]Outta curiosity, why am I defending God if I'm really atheist? :confused:[/QUOTE]
Because Freelancer is using ridiculous logic. Free - why do we have to be able to see/touch etc something for it to have a REASON to exist? Thats just stupid. Obviously if god exists, then we can't see/hear it etc but obviously he has a reason to exist considering he is GOD and he rules the world! Seriously man, SAY YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OR NOT, but I'm sick and tired of all you kids trying to Logically disprove his existance...Like nubs said - IT'S FRUITLESS AND ARROGANT.

Black holes are not something we can see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or sense, but we can calculate their existence with our higher brain functions than just sensory perception.

God is the same way, only his only proof is faith. I could say I don't have faith in newtonian physics and/or einsteinian physics (LOL FRIEND 14) and if I truly didn't, then there's nothing you could say to convince me otherwise.

That probably didn't come out quite as well as I think it did.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]obviously he has a reason to exist considering he is GOD and he rules the world![/QUOTE]

X exists because it is X. <-- stunning logic
X exists because it rules the world. <-- proof lol? I always thought no one ruled the world. George W. is about the closest person to ruling the world.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Black holes are not something we can see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or sense, but we can calculate their existence with our higher brain functions than just sensory perception.

God is the same way, only his only proof is faith. I could say I don't have faith in newtonian physics and/or einsteinian physics (LOL FRIEND 14) and if I truly didn't, then there's nothing you could say to convince me otherwise.

That probably didn't come out quite as well as I think it did.[/QUOTE]
Freelancer didn't say that if we can't see, hear, touch something that it DOESN'T EXIST. He said this means it doesn't have a REASON to exist. IMO thats the most conceded thing ever. To say that unless humans can sense it then it doesn't have a reason to exist is just completely arrogant and self-centered. We really think we rule the universe don't we?

Oh shut it and let people believe what they want. You believe purely in logic and reason, others believe purely in illogical religion. Considering nobody KNOWs what happens after death, the point is moot no matter what way you put it. You're just arguing for the sake of argument now.

[quote=Dj Yoshi]his only proof is faith.[/quote]

Faith is the antithesis of proof. With proof, we base our conclusion on the evidence. with faith, we search for evidence to support our conclusion(which was arbitrarily selected).

Damn!

I don't even believe in god for christ's sakes! I'm just addresing your *** BACKWARDS (for someone who claims to be supremely logical) logic that if humans can't directly sense something then it's existance is meaningless..

OK FREELANCER! OK?!?!

god you piss me off.

STOP ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT.

You know what I meant either way, for chrissakes.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]I'm just addresing your *** BACKWARDS (for someone who claims to be supremely logical) logic that if humans can't directly sense something then it's existance is meaningless..[/QUOTE]

.. to us.

lololololololololololol I'm arguing for the sake of argument lololololololololololol!

Why don't you just freaking shut it Yoshi? If you're not interested in the discussion, you have the much-preferred option of NOT POSTING, rather than posting meaningless garbage and being super annoying.

There IS no discussion, it's you nitpicking at the things I say instead of addressing them.

It's more like you can't handle any criticism or opposition to your opinion whatsoever, so you just attack people instead

No...your "critisism" of his position was just stupid nitpicking. You knew what he meant...you just chose to nitpick on a stupid word choice because that's all you had to say, and you wanted to further the argument.

Uh... no I don't.

I was tempted to post my opinions on this issue, but now I see that it's little more than a flamewar. This is one of those times where my respect for many Massassians gets reset to zero. For the love of God and Reason, someone please lock this thread.

I've seen this debate millions of times. Hell, this kind of thing is why the US is sending troops out to die in Iraq. It's why Iraq was in a conundrum in the first place. It's the cause of over half of the conflicts (it's either money or religion) that ever were! Why can't people just shut up, keep to themselves, and stop preaching this **** everywhere they look? If you want to try to explain the irrational with logic and science, go ahead. Prefer not to think about it? Need something to cheer you up? Make mythological or biblical explainations. Besides, some stupid e-argument isn't going to change other people's points of view.

No...just...wow. Not even gonna get started.

Free--I've stated my opinion on this issue a million times. If you can't get past a SINGLE word in my post (which I said probably didn't come out quite the way I meant it anyways) which really doesn't change all that goddamn much out of the entire post and address what I stated, then you need to get off your effing high horse and review your stupidity, and find a cure for it. Posthaste.