Torn between theism and atheism

[Lote-Tree]

Verification is good and fine and necessary, yes. But reality consists of more than that which can be empirically verified.

We accept only that which can be verified. And we will in the future verifiy more of the things that we are unable to verify currently. Science is a accumulative process.

But if that idea represents an actual entity, then no, you didn't bring that entity into existence in reality.

Our thoughts bring Ideas into Existence - Ideas that did not exist before. We can bring some of these Ideas into material form. For example - computers, aircraft, rockets, cars etc.

People have the idea of God because He exists.

Incorrect. People came to the Idea of God - and then they believed he must exist.

You are grasping at straws. A close (heck, even a quick) reading of the account will reveal a much more personal relationship than an internal conversation.

I am not clutching at anything. I am going off what the Bible recorded. Abraham came to his God using his intellect. He REASONED that Sun must be God but sun went down at night so he REASONED it can't be God etc...

Your comments are illogical based upon the account of the Bible.

Burning bush, sea parting, angels - these are NOT logical things. So as I said before you either leave logic aside and accept faith alone. But you can't have both.

Deep Blue's mathematical/calculating/strategy capabilities are impressive; but the ability to win a chess game is not the same as understanding reality and abstract thought.

Our Neural Networks already can think like a 2 year old so don't be so sure :-)

According to the Bible, God created out of nothing. Period. I do not care what the so-called philosophers and mystics say - the Bible says differently.

:-) As I said before. You either reject logic and accept Faith alone. But you can't have both.

Science's failure does not imply a similar limit upon God.

Science has not failed. Science has been a SPECTACULAR SUCESS in all branches of human knowledge. It has banished superstitions to the pages of Myths that they belong to.

Prove it.

Here is a excerpt from Wiki:

Creatin Ex-Nihilo

It has been argued that this concept cannot be deduced from the Hebrew and that the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, speaks of God "making" or "fashioning" the universe. However, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812) disputed these arguments in section II of his book titled "Tanya".

Thomas Jay Oord argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson, who acknowledge that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not present in the first book of the canon. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well.

Early Jewish and Christian theologians and philosophers, including Philo, Justin, Athenagoras, Hermogenes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, and, later, John Scotus Erigena also found no good reason to affirm the creation-out-of-nothing hypothesis. Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994).

Process theologians argue that God has always been related to some “world” or another.

The doctrine may, as the quotation from Maccabees illustrate, have arisen to explain the creative action of a God who is usually referred to in male terms, a patriarchal God even. Males do not gestate living things in the way normally capable of observation. So the way an unambiguously male "nobodaddy-type" deity does create life has to be explained by means of a science-fiction power. Ordinarily no mother would contemplate the claim that she has not created her child. This is why the mother's words are so extraordinary, and a highly provocative and original item of religious thought. A goddess religion would have the mother of the universe pecking up the primordial chaos, laying an egg then incubating it until it hatched open and all things tumbled out- earth, sky, trees, people, oceans, rivers, etc., etc..

Critics also claim that rejecting 'creatio ex nihilo' provides the opportunity to affirm that God has everlastingly created and related with some realm of nondivine actualities or another. According to this alternative God-world theory, no nondivine thing exists without the creative activity of God, and nothing can terminate God’s necessary existence.

Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter Day Saint movement dismissed creation ex nihilo, and introduced revelation that specifically countered this concept.[1] Mormons believe that God created everything from pre-existing matter. Latter-day Saint apologists have commented on Colossians 1:16 that the "Greek text does not teach ex nihilo, but creation out of pre-existing raw materials, since the verb ktidzo 'carried an architectural connotation...as in to build or establish a city....Thus, the verb presupposes the presence of already existing material.'"[2]

While the idea of God everlastingly relating with creatures may seem strange because of its novelty, even its opponents in Christian history – like Thomas Aquinas – admitted it as a logical possibility.

Another scientific argument against creatio ex nihilo is made by Sjoerd Bonting. A viable alternative is offered by physicists Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University). Their proposal is based upon the ancient idea that space and time have always existed in some form. Using developments in superstring theory, Steinhardt and Turok suggest that the Big Bang of our universe is a bridge to a pre-existing universe, and that creation undergoes an eternal succession of universes, with possibly trillions of years of evolution in each. Gravity and the transition from Big Crunch to Big Bang characterize an everlasting succession of universes. This argument, however, still fails to explain how such a system of successive universes could have come into being

For a more scholary account try - Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" and you can corroborate this with others aswell...

The God of the Bible created ex nihilo. If you reject that you have to reject the God portrayed in the scriptures.

Mystics and Philosophers have long come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Science is also showing Something does not come out of Nothing. Mystics embody the heart of any religion. They grasp the Scripture on a deeper level than the ordinary believers. Thus the Christian Mystics, The Sufis of Islam, the Kabalists of Judaism - all reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. And if Science and Mystics are saying the same thing?

God's logic may be very different from ours.

Even for a God 2+2 must equal 4?

You've said this three times and its no more sensible this time than the last two.

Then perhaps you are not grasping the implication when you say logic does not account for all reality.

We understand it to be rational - but rationality implies a mind; the universe does not have a mind.

Universe was rational before the human beings came onto the scene and understood the concept rational.

The judgment of "rational" or "irrational" is based upon our ideas of what "rationality" and "irrationality" mean. To another being with a different idea of "rationality" our universe might appear frightfully chaotic and "irrational."

Incorrect. Even for another being 2+2 must equal 4.

[hyperborean]

No matter what you throw at Zeppelin he will find a way to spin things. It's not worth arguing. You can't bring up things like reality or science in front of a creationist. It's God this and God that....end of story you're wrong...God is almighty...you can't live without God. But then again if you step in Red's shoes you'll see people posting "science this, science that, God is imaginary".

It's a never ending wheel.

[Redzeppelin]

We accept only that which can be verified. And we will in the future verifiy more of the things that we are unable to verify currently. Science is a accumulative process.

Yep.

Our thoughts bring Ideas into Existence - Ideas that did not exist before. We can bring some of these Ideas into material form. For example - computers, aircraft, rockets, cars etc.

I'm aware of all this. Either you don't get the subtlety of the distinction I'm making or you won't. Which is it?

Incorrect. People came to the Idea of God - and then they believed he must exist.

Here we go again: for the 3rd or 4th time: no: God created us with an awareness of His existence within our hearts. The idea of God does not precede the reality of God. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You and I disagree on this. Repeating yourself again and again doesn't make your point more valid. It just makes it redundant.

I am not clutching at anything. I am going off what the Bible recorded. Abraham came to his God using his intellect. He REASONED that Sun must be God but sun went down at night so he REASONED it can't be God etc...

Care to cite the chapter in Genesis that shows this process for me?

Burning bush, sea parting, angels - these are NOT logical things. So as I said before you either leave logic aside and accept faith alone. But you can't have both.

To someone ignorant of the power of God, they certainly are. Just like to a child, the physics of a black hole are fully incomprehensible.

:-) As I said before. You either reject logic and accept Faith alone. But you can't have both.

There must be an echo in here.

Science has not failed. Science has been a SPECTACULAR SUCESS in all branches of human knowledge. It has banished superstitions to the pages of Myths that they belong to.

And created neat new fictions too (cf. "evolution" and "abiogenesis").

Here is a excerpt from Wiki:

Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well.

At minimum, this weak argument still supports my position because God created the chaotic elements (what do you suppose He created those out of?).

Philo, for instance, postulated a pre-existent matter alongside God.

Philo can postulate away; but to accept this means that God is not who He says He is in the Bible; only an uncreated Being can be God; the existence of pre-existent matter implies that something created it - who?

For a more scholary account try - Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" and you can corroborate this with others aswell...

The rest of the article offered speculations and claims, but no really convincing arguments. Matter cannot be eternal - it is created, and only God is capable of doing so. Logically - there is no other answer because matter cannot create itself.

Mystics and Philosophers have long come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Science is also showing Something does not come out of Nothing. Mystics embody the heart of any religion. They grasp the Scripture on a deeper level than the ordinary believers. Thus the Christian Mystics, The Sufis of Islam, the Kabalists of Judaism - all reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. And if Science and Mystics are saying the same thing?

This is all fine. The Bible describes who God is - and the only way God can be God is that He creates EVERYTHING.

Even for a God 2+2 must equal 4?

Because the logic of mathematics is a reflection of God's character. God isn't confined by math - math is a representation of His logical, perfect character.

Then perhaps you are not grasping the implication when you say logic does not account for all reality.

Not our understanding of reality. Logic explains a good deal of reality; but, since we are temporal, carnal beings with spiritual components, we end up realizing that there are things about being human and about living here on earth that defy logic. Love is capable of defying the logical.

Universe was rational before the human beings came onto the scene and understood the concept rational.

I'm done with this point because you seem incapable of understanding how the world "rational" applies to the universe.

Incorrect. Even for another being 2+2 must equal 4.

Only because 2+2=4 is a reflection of God's character.

[Lote-Tree]

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
We accept only that which can be verified. And we will in the future verifiy more of the things that we are unable to verify currently. Science is a accumulative process.

Yep.

Now you know what Science IS. It is based on verification. Faith on the other hand sadly not.

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Our thoughts bring Ideas into Existence - Ideas that did not exist before. We can bring some of these Ideas into material form. For example - computers, aircraft, rockets, cars etc.

I'm aware of all this. Either you don't get the subtlety of the distinction I'm making or you won't. Which is it?

I think you are not understanding what you are saying. You said something must exist before we have the idea of it i.e God must exist therefore we have the idea of God. But computers never existed before. These things did not have a prior existence - we brought these things into existence.

Here we go again: for the 3rd or 4th time: no: God created us with an awareness of His existence within our hearts.

No. That is your belief. And I will respect that.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You and I disagree on this. Repeating yourself again and again doesn't make your point more valid.

The point is valid. But you don't have to accept it.

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I am not clutching at anything. I am going off what the Bible recorded. Abraham came to his God using his intellect. He REASONED that Sun must be God but sun went down at night so he REASONED it can't be God etc...

Care to cite the chapter in Genesis that shows this process for me?

Here:

19. Christianity. Bible, John 1.18

When Abraham saw the sun issuing in the morning from the east, he was first moved to think that that was God, and said, "This is the King that created me," and worshipped it the whole day. In the evening when the sun went down and the moon commenced to shine, he said, "Verily this rules over the orb which I worshipped the whole day, since the latter is darkened before it and does not shine any more." So he served the moon all that night. In the morning when he saw the darkness depart and the east grow light, he said, "Of a surety there is a King who rules over all these orbs and orders them."

To someone ignorant of the power of God, they certainly are. Just like to a child, the physics of a black hole are fully incomprehensible.

But we grow out childhood don't we? Citing example of a child will not help you here.

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
:-) As I said before. You either reject logic and accept Faith alone. But you can't have both.

There must be an echo in here.

OK, the point taken. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
Science has not failed. Science has been a SPECTACULAR SUCESS in all branches of human knowledge. It has banished superstitions to the pages of Myths that they belong to.

And created neat new fictions too (cf. "evolution" and "abiogenesis").

As you agreed previously - science relies on verification. Without it science will fall apart. Whatever "fictions" you believe science has created - it will have to pass the test of verification over and over again.

Evolution is a fact. Research in abiogenesis is at its early days yet. Just like Research in Higher Dimensions and Branes are at early stage yet. If you want to talk about these things we can do it on a separate thread.

Matter cannot be eternal - it is created, and only God is capable of doing so.

But you know that Matter is neither created or destroyed - it is one of the tenets of science? Hence matter is eternal?

Logically - there is no other answer because matter cannot create itself.

Belief in a God is not logical.

Originally Postied by Lote-Tree
Mystics and Philosophers have long come to reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. Science is also showing Something does not come out of Nothing. Mystics embody the heart of any religion. They grasp the Scripture on a deeper level than the ordinary believers. Thus the Christian Mystics, The Sufis of Islam, the Kabalists of Judaism - all reject Creation Ex-Nihilo. And if Science and Mystics are saying the same thing?

This is all fine.

Ah I see. Previously you said you did not care ;-)

The Bible describes who God is - and the only way God can be God is that He creates EVERYTHING.

Yes. But not Creation Ex-Nihilo. That is my point and Mystics and Philosophers and even science agrees with this.

Because the logic of mathematics is a reflection of God's character. God isn't confined by math - math is a representation of His logical, perfect character.

Erm...you mean he can make 2+2=5?

Not our understanding of reality. Logic explains a good deal of reality

It explains all of objective reality. And it is this reality that we can agree on. The rest is just the subjective experiences of the individual.

but, since we are temporal, carnal beings with spiritual components, we end up realizing that there are things about being human and about living here on earth that defy logic.

Objective Reality can't defy logic. Love is always a subjective experience of the individual.

I'm done with this point because you seem incapable of understanding how the world "rational" applies to the universe.

Rational implies that 2+2=4?

Only because 2+2=4 is a reflection of God's character.

And hence Creation Ex-Nihilo is impossible ;-)

Regards,
Lote.

[RobinHood3000]

Robin - are you suggesting I've engaged in this? I hope not, because I'll be forced to disagree with you. I have never gotten (that I can recall) into any converstation about God/Christ ever using the word "proof." My conversation with Lote was how Christ distinguished his claim of divinity from other so-called "divine" figures. To engage in any dialogue like you've posted is silly for a Christian to get involved with because, more than likely, he'll ultimately wind up where you've suggested he would (a place I less than half like being).

Not really YOU, so much as a straw-man construct of a theist and his argument. But I do think you give Christianity a great deal of credit, for which I can't really criticise you, but which rubs me in a funny way - not wrong, just funny.

I'm not sure I've suggested my basis is better - but I have definitely been repeating myself ad nauseum that naturalism is not more objective than Christianity; I'm trying to get my opponents to admit this - that's all; not that I'm right, or that they're wrong - but that their position is fairly equal to mine in terms of objectivity.

You're right, in that absolute objectivity does not exist. But I do view logic as more rigorous as theistic belief.

Then help me understand where you're coming from - because I so dislike having a conversation where my comments are based upon misunderstanding (an annoyingly common occurrence for me, unfortunately).

I think that that last statement of mine pretty much sums up where I'm coming from, although I doubt you'll buy into it as heavily as I do. I feel that all things supernatural or seemingly-supernatural must almost certainly have a logical explanation, because if they didn't, that would imply a higher power, and for a higher power to manifest itself irrevocably would decimate free will, defeat the purpose of faith, render all forms of science null, et cetera - all of which would be so radical (I daresay cataclysmic) to human functionality that there would be no point in having a soul, anyway.

[Redzeppelin]

Now you know what Science IS. It is based on verification. Faith on the other hand sadly not.

I have always known what science is. Do you know what faith means? Faith cannot be based upon "verification" because verification negates the need for faith.

I think you are not understanding what you are saying. You said something must exist before we have the idea of it i.e God must exist therefore we have the idea of God. But computers never existed before. These things did not have a prior existence - we brought these things into existence.

No - I'm quite clear on what I'm saying. I did not indicate that the object must proceed the idea of that object. I said that the idea does not establish the reality of the object. That we can conceptualize God points IMO to the fact that He created us and implanted a "God consciousness" within us. That is all I was suggesting. You're free to keep repeating the contrary.

No. That is your belief. And I will respect that.

The point is valid. But you don't have to accept it.

Thank you.
No.
OK.

Here:

19. Christianity. Bible, John 1.18

When Abraham saw the sun issuing in the morning from the east, he was first moved to think that that was God, and said, "This is the King that created me," and worshipped it the whole day. In the evening when the sun went down and the moon commenced to shine, he said, "Verily this rules over the orb which I worshipped the whole day, since the latter is darkened before it and does not shine any more." So he served the moon all that night. In the morning when he saw the darkness depart and the east grow light, he said, "Of a surety there is a King who rules over all these orbs and orders them."

And what Bible did this quotation come out of? Here's what John 1:18 actually says: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

But we grow out childhood don't we? Citing example of a child will not help you here.

You miss the point entirely. I am beginning to wonder if you are able to do the abstract thinking that analogy requires.

As you agreed previously - science relies on verification. Without it science will fall apart. Whatever "fictions" you believe science has created - it will have to pass the test of verification over and over again.

That is correct.

Evolution is a fact. Research in abiogenesis is at its early days yet. Just like Research in Higher Dimensions and Branes are at early stage yet. If you want to talk about these things we can do it on a separate thread.

That is incorrect. Here you violated your own repeated assertions of logic and verification. The theory of evolution & abiogenesis violates both in terms of probability and logic.

But you know that Matter is neither created or destroyed - it is one of the tenets of science? Hence matter is eternal?

Matter is not self existent: it did not and it cannot, create itself.

Belief in a God is not logical.

The fact that He created your mind and its logical ability makes this statement of yours beyond silly IMO.

Yes. But not Creation Ex-Nihilo. That is my point and Mystics and Philosophers and even science agrees with this.

Would you mind laying off the "mystics and philosophers"? They carry no authority with me, and you've said this 4-5x as if I can't hear you. I've heard this and I disagree with it. Where did you get the idea that repeating the same information over and over was effective in a discussion? It generally functions more as an annoyance.

Erm...you mean he can make 2+2=5?

THat's not what I said. I said the logic of 2+2=4 represents the logic of God. God isn't confined by the equation because the equation is representative of His perfect logic. To say God could make 2+2=5 is to say that logic and mathematics have no relationship to Him; to say that God is confined to 2+2=4 is to make them "higher" than God; neither is correct: 2+2=4 because God is who He is.

It explains all of objective reality. And it is this reality that we can agree on. The rest is just the subjective experiences of the individual.

It cannot account for all of reality, and all of reality must include human experience and interaction with "objective reality."

Objective Reality can't defy logic. Love is always a subjective experience of the individual.

Logic eventually breaks down. If it cannot account for human experience, behavior and attitude, then it is of only limited effectiveness in helping us understand human beings.

Rational implies that 2+2=4?

I told you I was done with this point because you don't understand the language and its usage.

And hence Creation Ex-Nihilo is impossible ;-)

Your language implies you've proved something; you've not. I'm through arguing this point because you simply keep repeating yourself. Matter did not always exist; that is an impossibility. Someone had to create it. I suggest God did. It's clear you disagree, and that's fine with me. But I cannot continue this fruitless discussion where you simply say the same thing again and again and again. If you refined your argument, or developed it in some way so our conversation could proceed, I'd happily plug away. But it's pretty clear that that's not going to happen in this conversation.

Thanks and good luck.

[Lote-Tree]

I have always known what science is. Do you know what faith means?

Yes. Here it is:

1. Belief is an assent to a set of unverifiable propositions.
2. FAITH is placing your trust in them.

Faith cannot be based upon "verification" because verification negates the need for faith.

Hence you might as well as believe in anything including the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky because you don't have to verify it. Do you get this?

I said that the idea does not establish the reality of the object.

And I am saying Thoughts brings Ideas into Existence - Ideas like God.

You miss the point entirely. I am beginning to wonder if you are able to do the abstract thinking that analogy requires.

Your analogy is incorrect. How many times do you have to repeat it? If you use this analogy - I can use the same analogy to say that we are like babies to God and hence belief and non-belief and Eternal Damanation for babies would be bonkers.

Here you violated your own repeated assertions of logic and verification. The theory of evolution & abiogenesis violates both in terms of probability and logic.

I said this Evolution is a FACT. Abiogenesis is currently being researched into.

Evolution - Theory in a nutshell -Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:

1. Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.

2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.

3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.

5. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.

6. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.

7. Much of this variation is inheritable.

8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.

9.The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.

10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, the creations of new varieties, and ultimately, new species.

Which bit is False?

Matter is not self existent: it did not and it cannot, create itself.

So what does Matter neither created or destroyed means?

Would you mind laying off the "mystics and philosophers"?

Why? They have a deeper understanding of the scripture. Perhaps you need to develop a better understanding of scripture too?

As for philosophers - if you reject logical arguments - why are you here?
FAITH requires no verification - so why this pointless posts here?

To say God could make 2+2=5 is to say that logic and mathematics have no relationship to Him; to say that God is confined to 2+2=4 is to make them "higher" than God; neither is correct: 2+2=4 because God is who He is.

LOL :-) There you have it. You can't have both. FAITH or LOGIC - you need to make a choice.

It cannot account for all of reality, and all of reality must include human experience and interaction with "objective reality."

Our interaction with Gravity does not change Laws of Gravity LOL :-)

Matter did not always exist; that is an impossibility.

Erm how do you know this? (don't say bible says so).

But I cannot continue this fruitless discussion where you simply say the same thing again and again and again.

Because my arguments is the same which you have no counter arguments. You try many ways but my argument remains the same because 2+2=4.

If you refined your argument, or developed it in some way so our conversation could proceed, oI'd happily plug away. But it's pretty clear that that's not going to happen in this conversation.

It has not been fruitless. I have shown that 2+2=4 even for a God.

Thanks and good luck.

Go in peace.

Shalom, Salam, Shantih and Peace.
Regards,
Lote

[Adras]

The way I see it most simply put is this. If I am wrong(Christian) big deal. I become Earth and I cease to exist. If Anyone else is wrong. Well, you are screwed. Not because God is cruel and is making you suffer but because you refused to accept him and he gave us free will to make our own choices. He laid them out before us. Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you. For no reason. Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me? No, didn't think so. Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of? No, didn't think so. Logically, explain Love. If you can do all this and still believe that Faith cannot exist in Logic. Well, then my friend you are un helpable and the only person that can help you is yourself.

[cuppajoe_9]

The way I see it most simply put is this. If I am wrong(Christian) big deal. I become Earth and I cease to exist. If Anyone else is wrong. Well, you are screwed. Not because God is cruel and is making you suffer but because you refused to accept him and he gave us free will to make our own choices. He laid them out before us. Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you. For no reason.

What if you've got the wrong religion? There have been thousands of religions aside from Christianity, you know. What if the Aztecs were right? Come to think of it, what if you've got the wrong sect? Some Christians think that acceptance of Christ as your personal savior is enough to get you into heaven, some think that good works are required, some think something else. If you pick the wrong one, you wind up in hell. I hope you've chosen your religion carefully.

Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me? No, didn't think so.

The universe is very big.

Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of? No, didn't think so.

I believe you're thinking of Hawking. And no, but I'm sure he could.

Logically, explain Love.

Sound Darwinian reasons.

If you can do all this and still believe that Faith cannot exist in Logic. Well, then my friend you are un helpable and the only person that can help you is yourself.

I don't understand this bit at all. The size of the universe and Einsteinian physics are hard to understand, therefore faith is logical?

[Lote-Tree]

Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you. For no reason.

Anyone can believe in a benenovolent God. But benonovlent God and Eternal damnation? That is hard to accept. Eternal Damnation for finite life? That is unjust. Eternal Damnation mere unbelief in a God? Thats unjust.

Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me?

Visible Universe is about 14.7 billion years old. But it could be even mind-blowingly bigger.

Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of?

Yes. They are like normal dimensions but may be very small and curled up. Also we can render 60 dimensional cube on to 2 dimensional surfaces :-)

Logically, explain Love.

Oxytocin in the brain?

Faith cannot exist in Logic.

1. Belief is an assent to unverifiable propositions.
2. Faith is placing your trust in them.

Thus either FAITH or LOGIC you can't have both.

[aeroport]

The way I see it most simply put is this. If I am wrong(Christian) big deal. I become Earth and I cease to exist. If Anyone else is wrong. Well, you are screwed. Not because God is cruel and is making you suffer but because you refused to accept him and he gave us free will to make our own choices. He laid them out before us. Either accept God and live eternally or deny him and burn in Hell with Satan who will torture and punish you.

It would be one thing, I should think, to insist on not believing in God even in the face of irrefutable proof of its existence, out of pure stubbornness (or even, one might say, a propensity for and love of "sin") - which would validate all kinds of things in the Bible that the logical thinker at present considers nonsense, and could indeed give weight to your "deny-and-burn-in-hell" argument - but I'm afraid it is something else entirely, something really quite reasonable, to require more evidence than an anonymous text (which makes no pretense as it is of corresponding in any particular way with reality) to convince one of the existence of this being. If you are believing in God simply out of a fear of eternal punishment for doing otherwise, would it not immediately know, being omniscient and all, that this was the case - that there's no real faith there but simply fear? Allow me to drag this discussion down to the realm of the finite momentarily to illustrate this. It's a somewhat imperfect, and decidedly unwieldy, analogy (as I say, it is a difficult comparison when the subject claims to exist beyond reality), but the same principle applies:
Say you've threatened me thus: "If by such-and-such time," say you [this "time" representing the inevitable death], "you have not convinced yourself - if you do not positively know beyond the vaguest shred of doubt - that I am Superman, then I will kidnap you and lower you into this boiling vat of water and remove you occasionally only to keep you from dying - so as to do it again, repeatedly, forever." Now, this is quite a fix, isn't it? In a way I would know that the whole affair was utter nonsense: obviously Superman does not exist, which would preclude in relatively short order any reasonable conviction on my part that you were he. But would I say that while hovering above the steaming vat? Well, maybe yes, maybe no. The real question here, though, is, Do you believe me if I say yes? Not likely. You would know that I know Superman does not exist - and that I thus could not possibly convince myself that you were he - and would probably have some idea of what I thought of this whole sick arrangement. It seems to me even more unreasonable to suspect that God believes anyone's claim that they actually love and "accept" it (i.e. "Him") under such a threat.

Also, can you logically explain the size of the universe for me? No, didn't think so. Can you explain multi dimensions that Einstein speaks of? No, didn't think so.

Well, it seems to be pretty well agreed-upon that the universe never really ends. But what if it does? We don’t really know. It might. We’ll figure it out eventually. That we haven’t yet is owing to the fact that we haven’t cut the measuring stick long enough, not necessarily because it is fundamentally impossible.
You seem to be discounting the fact somehow that Einstein was, in fact, a human being. He was. And the fact that he speaks of these things is proof that they can be comprehended by a human.

If you can do all this and still believe that Faith cannot exist in Logic. Well, then my friend you are un helpable and the only person that can help you is yourself.

So, to paraphrase, "If you're right, you cannot be helped"?

"un helpable"? But I can help myself?
…

I believe I’ve referred elsewhere to this judgment of the unconvinced on the part of believers… I’m not sure where it comes from – of course I’ve my opinion (the arrogant assertion of which you’ll notice I am with great civility forgoing) – and I am afraid I fail to see how it contributes to the discussion.

[cuppajoe_9]

It would be one thing, I should think, to insist on not believing in God even in the face of irrefutable proof of its existence, out of pure stubbornness (or even, one might say, a propensity for and love of "sin") - which would validate all kinds of things in the Bible that the logical thinker at present considers nonsense, and could indeed give weight to your "deny-and-burn-in-hell" argument - but I'm afraid it is something else entirely, something really quite reasonable, to require more evidence than an anonymous text (which makes no pretense as it is of corresponding in any particular way with reality) to convince one of the existence of this being.

Jamesian: master of the subordinate clause.

[aeroport]

Jamesian: master of the subordinate clause.

[ShoutGrace]

I believe I’ve referred elsewhere to this judgment of the unconvinced on the part of believers… I’m not sure where it comes from – of course I’ve my opinion (the arrogant assertion of which you’ll notice I am with great civility forgoing) – and I am afraid I fail to see how it contributes to the discussion.

I think that it is a result of general human nature - callousness, arrogance, etc. I will be attending a very liberal university soon, and have spent much time on its campus; I can testify that I've been equally maligned and denigrated for my beliefs. I don't worry about it, though, and won't complain (this isn't criticism towards you). Knowing the arguments and reflecting on the whole bit is part of the process - at least when I am attacked, though, I get attacked with generally meritorious (at least in my estimation) atheist thought.

Your experience is your experience, Jamesian, and I've not doubt that you've been thoughtlessly treated this way by believers in the past, and will continue to receive the same treatment in the future. I do, however, think that it would be unfortunate to brand all theists in the same mould as our Adras here (and I'm not saying that you've done that).

Judgment doesn't contribute to the discussion, clearly. The great thing about Internet forums is that you can escape them , and read from level headed, cogent, inspired and well intentioned theists and atheists elsewhere.

[RobinHood3000]

The universe is very big.

Makes sense to me.

Jamesian: master of the subordinate clause.

That there gets my vote for Quote of the Week.