Gwaine, m imperresd by ur words. Each to his or her own conviction. I must say that is a very graceful way of lookng at the world.

But 1 question, did the bible actually quote the word science?

Well ToyM28, depending on what version of the Bible one is using,
the word "science" appears in our English Bibles (KJV) in only two
verses that I can think of presently:

I Tim. 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Daniel 1:4
Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all
wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such
as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might
teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

These are the only two verses I know of at the moment where "science"
appears in the KJV.

From what I learnt today in church, science is simply "gnosis" (Gr. for just
"knowing", but as used in those contexts it's more than general knowledge.
Luke was a physician, and that would've involved some biological sciences or
some knowledge of it. Philosophy is a branch of science, I believe, that
deals with the nature of human behaviour (sometimes called 'behavioural
sciences'), and there again the Bible gently warns us to not anchor our
faith on that philosophical branch of science:

Col. 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Well, at the end of the day, our pastor encouraged us to respect and pursue
science, but that we should understand that science and faith in Christ are
not the same things. Perhaps this helps?

ToyM28:

M a christian nd i believe in d existence of God. But for an atheist to claim that GOd doesnt exist outrightly, without even conider his existence, 2 me is outright proud and ignorant. How can one be sure that God deosnt exist, dere is evidence that points to the existence and non existence of God, it all depends on Faith. So if someone, opens deir mouth and balantly tells me that God doesnt exist without an iota of doubt in his or her mind, i'll conceive that person as a fool.

It all depends on what you call a claim that God doesn't exist. To make such a claim, you must know the properties of said God and only then can you determine the existence of that God. I cannot claim that a supernatural being does not exist a priori (as it is impossible to prove a negative), but when specific attributes of that God are described, that God can be falsified by investigating these attributes.

When one claims that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent all at once while evil exists in this world, then one can logically deduce that that God does not exist because he contedicts himself. That doesn't say anything about a God with other properties, though.

@nferyn,

You see why you have a problem that will last a lifetime? You're trying
ever so hard to reduce God into a test tube by thinking He is "falsifiable".

I'll provide you this one thing - the one attribute you need is faith - for
that is the only way to know Him. If you reject that and instead ask that
the one requirement He asks be thrown out, then you're the one under
spotlight.

How does the question of contradiction equate denial of God's existence?

Even you as a man can contradict yourself in matters of character traits -
and when you do, would that be grounds enough to deny your existence?

It's of very little consequence that anyone tries to find contradiction in the
attributes of God - what is the essential question is: how does that deny
His existence?

Gwaine:

@nferyn,

You see why you have a problem that will last a lifetime? You're trying
ever so hard to reduce God into a test tube by thinking He is "falsifiable".

If something isn't falsifiable, it's meaningless. It can be whatever you say it is and there's no way to determine the validity of your claims.

Gwaine:

I'll provide you this one thing - the one attribute you need is faith - for
that is the only way to know Him. If you reject that and instead ask that
the one requirement He asks be thrown out, then you're the one under
spotlight.

I'm incapable of faith. It goes against my very nature. I cannot believe insomething without evidence.

Gwaine:

How does the question of contradiction equate denial of God's existence?

If you didn't see that there's little point arguing. It's impossible for something to be red and green at the same time in the same configuration. If God is all powerfull and all knowing while evil exist, he cannot be all good. Either he does not possess these attributes or he does not exist. Simple logic.

Gwaine:

Even you as a man can contradict yourself in matters of character traits -
and when you do, would that be grounds enough to deny your existence?

Obviously, but I cannot be 2 meters tall and 1.5 meters tall at the same time. God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time while evil exists in the world.

Gwaine:

It's of very little consequence that anyone tries to find contradiction in the
attributes of God - what is the essential question is: how does that deny
His existence?

Either that or he does not posses these attributes. There is no other outcome to that dilemma

@nferyn,

You're not really contributing to the issue in a way that can help you.
Perhaps it's convenient for you to state that you're incapable of faith,
not because it goes against your nature, but because you simply do
NOT want to believe, and that's that.

You have actually contradicted yourself in this recycled escapist idea
of skeptism. How does contradiction equate denial of God's existence?
Let me even apply some logic to help your argument:

Do you deny the existence of anything at all just because of some
perceived contradiction? Now, a moment ago, you stated that:

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

nferyn:

Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes contradict each other.

Granted. Question: just because the particle and wave characteristics
contradict each other, does that provide the grounds for denying that
a phenomenon known as "light" exists? Does contradiction translate
into denial?

The logic you see as conveniently applicable in your case against faith
in God seems to have been altogether forgotten in a matter of hours.

Gwaine:

@nferyn,

You're not really contributing to the issue in a way that can help you.
Perhaps it's convenient for you to state that you're incapable of faith,
not because it goes against your nature, but because you simply do
NOT want to believe, and that's that.

You don't have control over what you believe. If you think you have, you're deluding yourself.

Gwaine:

You have actually contradicted yourself in this recycled escapist idea
of skeptism. How does contradiction equate denial of God's existence?
Let me even apply some logic to help your argument:

It's funny that you call my ideas escapist. Believing in a God because one cannot face the cold hard fact that we cease to exist after death is far more escapist than accepting that reality.

Gwaine:

Do you deny the existence of anything at all just because of some
perceived contradiction? Now, a moment ago, you stated that:

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

Granted. Question: just because the particle and wave characteristics
contradict each other, does that provide the grounds for denying that
a phenomenon known as "light" exists? Does contradiction translate
into denial?

The logic you see as conveniently applicable in your case against faith
in God seems to have been altogether forgotten in a matter of hours.

This only shows that our understanding of the phenomenon is limited. It shows that attributing both characteristics to the phenomenon does not adequately capture it's essence. Now, as to the existence of God, it only shows that either God does not exist or he does not have these attributes. If the Judeo-Christian God has these attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence), he does not exist. If he exists, he does not have these attributes. That's a simple application of logic and does not depend on what I or anyone else believes.

@nferyn,

I'm not surprised - it's becoming more contracted for you to apply some
logic in some situations; but when the same logic is used to mirror your
own reasoning, it "does not depend on what I or anyone else believes."
Don't sweat it out, pal - it does not help to try any logic at all if you're at
all uncomfy with it in your reasoning. The question still remains, though
I'm not forcing you to answer it - I'm only just wondering about it:

"How does a contradiction of attributes constitute a denial of existence
of any entity?"

Look again at the application of your own logic -

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

Since the attributes contradict each other, then I suppose by your own
assumptions, the phenomenon called "light" does not exist? Or again,
it's either "light" does not exist or it does not have the properties you
ascribed to it. And if the entity called "light" has these attributes that
contradict each other, then it does not exist. So if it exists, it does not
have the properties you said it has.

Of course, you shouldn't be alarmed about these suppositions, for I'm
not the one applying logic to the existence of God. My application of
your own logic to that argument, to the effect of disavowing the (non)-
existence of God, is to persuade you to see that your premise is weak.

In the same vein, I'd like you to see that if you apply your reasoning to
the question of the existence of God, then perhaps it holds true and
becomes even easier for you to grasp that -

" . . our understanding of [God] is limited. It only shows that attributing
any characteristics to [God] does not adequately capture His essence."

So, dear nferyn, it doesn't make sense to bend the rules and see the
logic only applicable for your own convictions while distrusting the same
rule of application in matters of faith and the existence of God. You may
pedantically assert that God cannot exist because of some perceived
contradiction in His attributes, but be willing as well to admit that your
idea of "light" cannot exist because of your stated contradiction in its
attributes. If it does regardless of any contradiction in its attributes or
characteristics, what does that tell you about your logic in the question
of the existence of God?

Finally, the preceding argument does not in anyway indicate that I'm
admitting to any contradiction in the attributes of God; I'm only offering
at the present to amicably show you that the logic you applied is weak
and does not hold true.

I'd normally hate jumping into the middle of a long discussion of this magnitude, but I felt like responding to this particular post.

Gwaine:

@nferyn,

I'm not surprised - it's becoming more contracted for you to apply some
logic in some situations; but when the same logic is used to mirror your
own reasoning, it "does not depend on what I or anyone else believes."
Don't sweat it out, pal - it does not help to try any logic at all if you're at
all uncomfy with it in your reasoning. The question still remains, though
I'm not forcing you to answer it - I'm only just wondering about it:

"How does a contradiction of attributes constitute a denial of existence
of any entity?"

Look again at the application of your own logic -

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

Since the attributes contradict each other, then I suppose by your own
assumptions, the phenomenon called "light" does not exist? Or again,
it's either "light" does not exist or it does not have the properties you
ascribed to it. And if the entity called "light" has these attributes that
contradict each other, then it does not exist. So if it exists, it does not
have the properties you said it has.

That's a weird argument you have going on there. I'm no physics expert, but I've never heard anything on wave and particle attributes been contradictory characteristics. Al quick skim of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon, also suggests that photons have a dual nature, but that doesn't mean its properties contradict each other.

Now on to the existence of concepts the illogical "square-circle". I agree with Nferyn, that the only way to address the concept of a largely unevidenced being, concept, thing, etc, is to identify and debate the attributes given by the positive claimnant of the said being, etc. What can we deduce from a potentially unfalsifiable being like the christian God, with contradictory attributes? I'd say, it's either She doesn't exist, She doesn't have the attributes ascribed to her (but which one?), or she truly the very epitome of the illogical "square circle" (but that in itself is far too illogical a concept for me to think through and give credence to at this time of the night).

Of course, you shouldn't be alarmed about these suppositions, for I'm
not the one applying logic to the existence of God. My application of
your own logic to that argument, to the effect of disavowing the (non)-
existence of God, is to persuade you to see that your premise is weak.

The problem though is teh abandonment of logic, leaves the door open to all kinds of delusions and fantasies, which is all well and good, as long as those delusions and fantasies do not become dangerous ideaologies to oppress and /or justify injustice.

In the same vein, I'd like you to see that if you apply your reasoning to
the question of the existence of God, then perhaps it holds true and
becomes even easier for you to grasp that -

" . . our understanding of [God] is limited. It only shows that attributing
any characteristics to [God] does not adequately capture His essence."

Perhaps. Perhaps there is a Supreme being with characteristics that seem totally contradictory to our human senses, just perhaps. We can only do the best we can, with reason and logic.

Finally, the preceding argument does not in anyway indicate that I'm
admitting to any contradiction in the attributes of God; I'm only offering
at the present to amicably show you that the logic you applied is weak
and does not hold true.

The problem though is, from our view (the view of humanity), the characteristics attributed to God not only sometimes contradict themselves, but contrdict both reality and reports of God from his holy books.

I agree with kag. Does God exist? No, She doesn't!!

@KAG,

I'm sorry to say that you're not reading the logical sequence of our argument.
If anyone is having a weird inference, it's the gentleman who supposes that
the attributes of light contradict each other - and then my simple question to
him was: "how does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

The suggestion of the logic was not mine - it was his; and if anything at all,
you should have seen that clearly. At the end of the day, I made clear that
I did not necessarily agree with him and the only reason why I used what
he called logic was to amicably show him that his logic was weak and thus
untenable in its application. Trying to slice my post is hilarious - at least you
ought to have seen that I was quoting him verbatim; and your agreeing
with him is even more surprising because you're bending the rules as well.

Anyone is welcome to apply whatever logic they so please, but mark well:
they should not be so convoluted as to spiral out of context. Evil exists in
the world, but the logic you're all happy-clappy to apply is quaint because
you're making evil one of the attributes of God. How you manage to do that
is beyond me. Darkness is a phenomenon that exists but does not constitute
the attributes or properties of light - are you then saying that light does not
exist because darkness is real? Just because evil is real does not negate
the existence of God as far as evil is not one of His attributes - that's why
the "square-circle" concept comes closer home to you than anyone would
suppose it does to my rejoinders.

@Seun,

It's okay for you to present a case and hide behind an idea you're unable to
sustain, only to show up with a joke. At least, it eases the tension.

@Gwaine,

I follow your rejoinders with interest and was wondering that KAG missed the sequence of nferyn's logic. Like KAG, I'm no expert on the rubrics of quantum physics (or any physics for that matter), but it doesn't appear to me that the skeptical application of the logic used so far by nferyn has been consistent; and predictably it could not hold any substance when applied to "mirror" his own reasoning.

Gwaine:

@KAG,

Sorry to chime in here and hijack the discussion with KAG, but the misrepresentation of my arguments is going a little too far here

Gwaine:

I'm sorry to say that you're not reading the logical sequence of our argument.
If anyone is having a weird inference, it's the gentleman who supposes that
the attributes of light contradict each other - and then my simple question to
him was: "how does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

It doesn't automatically. It either invalidates the presmisses or it of invalidates the conclusion. Either God doesn't exist or he doesn't have these attributes simultaneously. That has been my argument all along and you conveniently focus on only one part of the argument.

Gwaine:

The suggestion of the logic was not mine - it was his; and if anything at all,
you should have seen that clearly.

Not exactly. You stated that Seun's contribution was illogical. It wasn't.

Gwaine:

At the end of the day, I made clear that
I did not necessarily agree with him and the only reason why I used what
he called logic was to amicably show him that his logic was weak and thus
untenable in its application.

The logic still holds. Either the attributes are false (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience) or the conclusion is false (God exists).

Gwaine:

Trying to slice my post is hilarious - at least you
ought to have seen that I was quoting him verbatim; and your agreeing
with him is even more surprising because you're bending the rules as well.

I don't know which rules you're referring to. KAG didn't even address my remark but rather focussed on the contradictory nature of the Judeo-Christian God.

Gwaine:

Anyone is welcome to apply whatever logic they so please, but mark well:
they should not be so convoluted as to spiral out of context. Evil exists in
the world, but the logic you're all happy-clappy to apply is quaint because
you're making evil one of the attributes of God.

I don't make it an attribute of God. The argument is that evil is impossible if God possesses the attributes omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence simultaneously. Evil exists, thus either God does not exist or he doesn't posses these attributes.

Gwaine:

How you manage to do that
is beyond me. Darkness is a phenomenon that exists but does not constitute
the attributes or properties of light - are you then saying that light does not
exist because darkness is real? Just because evil is real does not negate
the existence of God as far as evil is not one of His attributes - that's why
the "square-circle" concept comes closer home to you than anyone would
suppose it does to my rejoinders.

Once more, it's you that assume that I imply evil to be an attribute of God. That was not my argument.

If you apply the same argument to light you will come to the conclusion that my formulation was not comprehensive and too analogous. Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes is an incorrect formulation. I shouldn't have used the word attributes, as it doesn't apply to this case. I'm sorry if my knowledge of physics is too limited to be precise enough.

The only reason we're at this point in the discussion is the fact that you found Seun's argument not to be logical, which is incorrect. Can we get back on topic and look at what exactly the supernatural is?

@nferyn,

You should understand that you'll go round in circles because your presentations
are not helping your arguments at all - and only when I apply the same rule of
your own logic that it suddenly becomes inconvenient - yes? Please.

What you accuse me of conveniently focusing on ('only one part of the argument')
shows that you don't understand logic at all, or at best you persuade me that you
really do not. If you know it does not apply all through, why use it in the first place?
I've held that I'm not the one applying logic, and if you hold onto that, all well and
good - I'll use it in just precisely the way you formulate your arguments. Sorry to
notice that KAG didn't even address your remarks, but that's not my loss - at the
very least, I was making reference to what you said and didn't see the need for
KAG to have tried to slice my piece without realising that the verbatim quotes were
yours and not mine.

I still stand by what I stated - Seun's contribution is illogical, and I wait to see
how he counters that.

Now then, if 'the logic still holds', I take it that by your own use of your logic, the
question of the "attributes" (or whatever else you choose to edit it to mean) of
"light" shows that, if the properties/attributes contradict each other, your light
does not exist - yes? That's why I've consistently asked that you look closer at
the application of what you call "logic": the basic question I've been asking is -

"How does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence of an entity?"

If you keep telling me that the contradiction of attributes of an entity denies its
exstence, then for fairness sake be willing to apply that rational thought to your
own example of the case in light - if that's rational at all. How have I misapplied
this or conveniently held on to "only one part of the argument" when you keep
presenting the same logic over and over again and now even saying that "the logic
still holds"? - what am I to do with that, if you feel it is only convenient to be applied
to one side of the argument that best suits you?

Good to know that you're consistent with "evil exists" - but does that negate the
existence of God? You really don't know what you're saying, nferyn. Let me help
you a bit more with your assumptions again with the example you gave about the
case of light: be reminded that we're here dealing with 'attributes', so if darkness
exists, how does that affect the properties/characteristics/attributes of light?

Please slow down and before you rush a reply, think through your statements
carefully. What exactly is your supposition? So far, there have been mixtures I
can't accept out of hand in your replies - it seems to me that you're trying ever
so hard to establish that "the attributes of God are contradictory", [quotation
marks are mine now as I'm not quoting you verbatim just here] and on that basis
you reject the existence of God - did I read you right?

As for the definition of the supernatural - I thought it was attempted in simple
form in one of my earlier replies?

Gwaine:

@nferyn,

You should understand that you'll go round in circles because your presentations
are not helping your arguments at all - and only when I apply the same rule of
your own logic that it suddenly becomes inconvenient - yes? Please.

1. I didn't apply that logic to the case of light. My formulation was incorrect and you used that fact to juxtapose it against (part of) my argument
2. My argument has 2 possible conclusions, not one. Focussing on only one presents a strawman of my argument. You imply that I take a position that I'm not taking. My argument does not end in the conclusion that God doesn't exist, but rather that [b]either [/b]God doesn't exist [b]or [/b]he does not posses these attributes.
This is the logic I was referring to, not "How does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence of an entity?", but rather A contradiction of premisses invalidates [b]either [/b]the premisses [b]or [/b]the conclusion

Gwaine:

What you accuse me of conveniently focusing on ('only one part of the argument')
shows that you don't understand logic at all, or at best you persuade me that you
really do not.

Your persuasion here doesn't hold water. I can put the argument in a formal logical construct, if you would prefer that.

Gwaine:

If you know it does not apply all through, why use it in the first place?

You have no clue, have you? It does apply, only your misrepresentation doesn't.

Gwaine:

I've held that I'm not the one applying logic, and if you hold onto that, all well and
good - I'll use it in just precisely the way you formulate your arguments.

You were the one saying that Seun's statement was illogical, not me.

Gwaine:

Sorry to notice that KAG didn't even address your remarks, but that's not my loss - at the
very least, I was making reference to what you said and didn't see the need for
KAG to have tried to slice my piece without realising that the verbatim quotes were
yours and not mine.

He/she pointed out the flaw in this sentence Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes, for the rest he/she correctly substantiated my main argument and that [/i]had absolutely nothing to do with that quote.

Gwaine:

I still stand by what I stated - Seun's contribution is illogical, and I wait to see
how he counters that.

You just made that assertion, why don't you substantiate it.

Gwaine:

Now then, if 'the logic still holds', I take it that by your own use of your logic, the
question of the "attributes" (or whatever else you choose to edit it to mean) of
"light" shows that, if the properties/attributes contradict each other, your light
does not exist - yes? That's why I've consistently asked that you look closer at
the application of what you call "logic": the basic question I've been asking is -

"How does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence of an entity?"

Repetition ad nauseam. I did not make such a claim. No matter how many times you're going to repeat that that's my argument, it is not

Gwaine:

If you keep telling me that the contradiction of attributes of an entity denies its
exstence, then for fairness sake be willing to apply that rational thought to [i]your
own example of the case in light - if that's rational at all.

I do not make such a claim.

Gwaine:

How have I misapplied this or conveniently held on to "only one part of the argument" when you keep
presenting the same logic over and over again and now even saying that "the logic
still holds"? - what am I to do with that, if you feel it is only convenient to be applied
to one side of the argument that best suits you?

You're being disingenious here. The argument contains bot the either [/b]and the [b]or [/b]part, not only one.

Gwaine:

Good to know that you're consistent with "evil exists" - but does that negate the
existence of God? You really don't know what you're saying, nferyn.

Maybe not in the strawman you make of my argument. [b]I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT A CONTRADICTION IN THE ATTRIBUTES OF A PHENOMENON NEGATES ITS EXISTENCE

Gwaine:

Let me help you a bit more with your assumptions again with the example you gave about the
case of light: be reminded that we're here dealing with 'attributes', so if darkness
exists, how does that affect the properties/characteristics/attributes of light?

You don't seem to succeed in constructing a proper argument here. What exactly are you trying to say?

Gwaine:

Please slow down and before you rush a reply, think through your statements
carefully. What exactly is your supposition? So far, there have been mixtures I
can't accept out of hand in your replies - it seems to me that you're trying ever
so hard to establish that "the attributes of God are contradictory", [quotation
marks are mine now as I'm not quoting you verbatim just here] and on that basis
you reject the existence of God - did I read you right?

You really don't need to be so condescending and you're not reading me right.
1. It was not the argument I was making
2. I only reject the existence of the Judeo-Christian God on the properties ascribed to him by those who call themselves Christians. Maybe you can answer that one: Does God have the attributes omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence?

Gwaine:

As for the definition of the supernatural - I thought it was attempted in simple
form in one of my earlier replies?

You mean this:

The supernatural is what is not easily detected by the natural

It's just another God-of-the-gaps definition: whatever we can currently not ascribe to natural causes must be, by definition be supernatural. This is fluid and completely unfalsifiable, it might as well not exist and even if it did it's existence is inconsequential.

@nferyn,

Now it's becoming a shouting game for you and as expected you'd have had
to come back accusing me of being disingenuous. One thing is for sure: you
don't understand logic, and I'll state again that I wasn't the one using logic to
try and establish the (non)-existence of God. If Seun used it, why has it become
a worry that I replied that I stand by what I stated and wait to see how he
counters what I stated in reference to his post?

Whether or not you applied logic in reference to light begs the issue - you
can say that now because it has become a narrow noose around your own
argument. The point is that when you try to establish the non-existence of
God on the premise of perceived contradiction in His attributes, my question
suggests that 'contradiction in attributes' does not provide grounds for 'denial
of existence' of an entity. That you're holding on to that "logic" simply left
me no alternatives than to draw your attention to the earlier statement you
made about the contradiction of the characteristics in light. Bottomline -
the idea that contradiction in attributes negates the existence of an entity
does not apply - and that should have sufficed. Where you want to pass that
on only to the case of your atheistic ideology against the existence of God,
I reckon that you're bending the rules, and I made bold to say so.

Question: does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

Simply admit that the logic does not hold true rather than come back with
your accusations of my being disingenuous. What is even hilarious to me
is that one minute "it does not apply" and the next minute "it does" - and
then you excuse it under the sob story that my misrepresentation doesn't.
Repetition ad nauseam indeed, because you choose to edit and re-edit
the premises.

Come back yet again and cry hoo-ha, afterall you're entitled to your opinion.

If the argument contains both the either and the or part, did you fail to see
that I used the same application in an earlier reply? When your discourse
wobbles, then I'm all of a sudden at play with a "strawman"? Try something
else - not that weathered appeal you unsuccessfully used with 4get_me.

You probably know me by now - I iggy invectives and try to keep to an issue,
so all the talk about being disingenuous notwithstanding, I'll grant you that
I'm one of those who believes that the attributes of God include His omniscience,
omnipotence and omnibenevolence. How these attributes are in contradiction
has been a concern in my discourse with you, but I haven't read anything in
your rejoinders to that effect other than the introduction of the existence of
evil in the world as a prism for scrutinizing His attributes. That sounds like
the example I derived from your analogy with light - properties/characteristics/
attributes of light are not affected by darkness even though the latter is a
real and existing phenomenon.

The idea of wanting to disavow God's existence by an appeal to a contradiction
in His attributes is yet to be dealt with in your rejoinders. So, what is it -
that the attributes of God contradict one another; or that the presence
of evil justifies the idea of His non-existence?

I applaud you for your very limited understanding of the supernatural, and
I actually didn't expect anything better from you. Whether or not you reject
the concept altogether is in fact inconsequential, because as earlier, not all
materialists or naturalists will agree with you. What you don't understand
ought not to become once and for all "inconsequential"; the best you can do
is not pretend a superiority over those who know what they're talking about.

Gwaine:

@KAG,

I'm sorry to say that you're not reading the logical sequence of our argument.

I skimmed very quickly through it, because the thread had been going for a while. Maybe I shouldn't have.

If anyone is having a weird inference, it's the gentleman who supposes that
the attributes of light contradict each other - and then my simple question to
him was: "how does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

I was just trying to "correct" (was I right?) the idea of light having contradictory properties, amongst other things. I did think you were the one that stated it, but meh!, my bad. The points still stand though.

The suggestion of the logic was not mine - it was his; and if anything at all,
you should have seen that clearly. At the end of the day, I made clear that
I did not necessarily agree with him and the only reason why I used what
he called logic was to amicably show him that his logic was weak and thus
untenable in its application. Trying to slice my post is hilarious - at least you
ought to have seen that I was quoting him verbatim; and your agreeing
with him is even more surprising because you're bending the rules as well.

My apologies then, for attributing the light thing to you, but yes i do agree, that the only way to debate the existence of a largely unevidenced, unfalsifiable entity, is to debate the attributes of the entity. If those attributes are contradictory, then it logically leads to several conclusions (which are in an earlier post).

By the way, how am I bending the rules, and which rules?

P.S. I slice almost every post I address, and I most definitely slice long posts that have a lot of points in them

Anyone is welcome to apply whatever logic they so please, but mark well:
they should not be so convoluted as to spiral out of context. Evil exists in
the world, but the logic you're all happy-clappy to apply is quaint because
you're making evil one of the attributes of God. How you manage to do that
is beyond me. Darkness is a phenomenon that exists but does not constitute
the attributes or properties of light - are you then saying that light does not
exist because darkness is real? Just because evil is real does not negate
the existence of God as far as evil is not one of His attributes - that's why
the "square-circle" concept comes closer home to you than anyone would
suppose it does to my rejoinders.

Actually, I haven't argued about evil being one of your God's characteristics (mainly because evil would have to be defined first), so that makes your point on me arguing for God having a evil character, and light and dark, moot at this point. I could argue that from my perspective, and based on acts attributed to him, God has acted immorally, and that means from my definition of evil, he is evil, but that's neither here nor there.

God exists.
The bile says that only fools say in their heart that there is no God

Gwaine:

Question: does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

It could, but of course that wasn't the only option/conclusion that was given, and you know it.

Simply admit that the logic does not hold true rather than come back with
your accusations of my being disingenuous. What is even hilarious to me
is that one minute "it does not apply" and the next minute "it does" - and
then you excuse it under the sob story that my misrepresentation doesn't.
Repetition ad nauseam indeed, because you choose to edit and re-edit
the premises.

Come back yet again and cry hoo-ha, afterall you're entitled to your opinion.

If the argument contains both the either and the or part, did you fail to see
that I used the same application in an earlier reply? When your discourse
wobbles, then I'm all of a sudden at play with a "strawman"? Try something
else - not that weathered appeal you unsuccessfully used with 4get_me.

I'm one of those who believes that the attributes of God include His omniscience,
omnipotence and omnibenevolence. How these attributes are in contradiction
has been a concern in my discourse with you, but I haven't read anything in
your rejoinders to that effect other than the introduction of the existence of
evil in the world as a prism for scrutinizing His attributes.

One of the problems with being all the Omni-s you listed, is of course the hell issue. Basic it is illogical to claim an omnibenevolent God intentionally created (being omniscient) human beings, just to punish them infinitely for finite crimes, and sometimes nothing more than minor slights from his fallible creatures.

Others would be, his bloodlust in the old testament, his gaffes in Genesis, which of course led the illogically termed omnibenevolent, to destroy every human beings (if you hold to a literal view; and even if not, it does seem to tell us something about the characteristics attributed to God), and still not getting it right (which contradicts omniscience)…

@KAG,

Thank you for at least seeing my point with the earlier attribution of the 'light'
thing to me - I suspected that was what might've happened, and we all make
mistakes sometimes, don't we?

As to the "correction", I completely agree with you - because I actually saw
that wikipedia article a few days before you recommended it, but point was
that I was drawing nferyn's attention to the idea that a logic supposing the
contradiction of attributes (as he had said) did not justify the denial of the
existence of an entity. All the same, I forebear as requested of him and in
good humour leave off using that logic in hope that he understands it does
not apply only conveniently in a one-sided argument.

I respect - and always try to respect - the views of anyone or their convictions.
True, I don't have all the answers and my opinions may be untenable to a
lot of people who read them. What I coudn't grasp and thus could not accept
out of hand is how the attributes of God contradict one another. Introducing
"evil" as the necessary ingredient for the inference that God's attributes are
contradictory and thus negate His existence thereby is actually weak - and
that's what I was appealing to or trying to point out.

Again, one has to understand the context of whatever one discusses - I try
not to misread people, and apologise where they point it out to me that I'd
inadvertently done so. A case in point is that God did not create people in
order to send them to hell; the question is what qualifies one for either the
place we call 'heaven' or what we believe to be 'hell'?

It's difficult for people to understand or grasp the concept that a loving and
holy God must punish evil deeds - for that should also be a concern in this
issue. Like you, I agree that when we take it one step further, we'd all have
to come back defining concepts, and "evil" needs to be defined before we
trade ideas across board.

Bottomline is: I don't necessarily agree that the attributes of God are in any
way contradictory - and the only way someone would suppose that they do
is to try and introduce 'evil' into them as if it's part of His attributes. That's
why for me, I would suppose by that very same rule of logic, 'darkness'
presupposes that light does not exist! But, of course, that would only be a
big laugh.

Thank you again for sharing with me, and I'd like to thank all who've made
challenging inputs, no less nferyn, even if I don't agree with some of his
logic.

Gwaine:

@KAG,

Thank you for at least seeing my point with the earlier attribution of the 'light'
thing to me - I suspected that was what might've happened, and we all make
mistakes sometimes, don't we?

Indeed.

I respect - and always try to respect - the views of anyone or their convictions.
True, I don't have all the answers and my opinions may be untenable to a
lot of people who read them. What I coudn't grasp and thus could not accept
out of hand is how the attributes of God contradict one another. Introducing
"evil" as the necessary ingredient for the inference that God's attributes are
contradictory and thus negate His existence thereby is actually weak - and
that's what I was appealing to or trying to point out.

It's not just the introduction of evil that makes her attributes contradictory though.

Again, one has to understand the context of whatever one discusses - I try
not to misread people, and apologise where they point it out to me that I'd
inadvertently done so. A case in point is that God did not create people in
order to send them to hell; the question is what qualifies one for either the
place we call 'heaven' or what we believe to be 'hell'?

From what I understand from Christians and Christianity, the majority consensus seems to be (just a quick, and very brief summary), a person goes to hell if he/she rejects the "temporary death of “God made flesh”’s sacrifice, to save humans from God", anybody that accepts the sacrifice gets an ultimate "get out of jail free" card, and goes to heaven. There are blurry lines though, like, “do those who had never heard of Jesus go to hell, or whether the unbaptised, or non-Christian babies go to hell.

However, the reasons for going to heaven or hell are unimportant, as it doesn't still address how an omniscient God can intentionally make many of his most beloved creatures just to be punished infinitely (and for all intents and purposes, it is the vast majority of his creatures that will be damned), and still be called omni benevolent.

It's difficult for people to understand or grasp the concept that a loving and
holy God must punish evil deeds - for that should also be a concern in this
issue. Like you, I agree that when we take it one step further, we'd all have
to come back defining concepts, and "evil" needs to be defined before we
trade ideas across board.

Indefinitely punished, and without the opportunity to learn or atone through the punishment. Also, irregardless of the definition of evil, it seems highly illogical for an omni benevolent being to punish humans for honestly held ideologies based primarily on empathy and love, whose only faults are/were rejecting a concept they deemed too ridiculous to accept.

Bottomline is: I don't necessarily agree that the attributes of God are in any
way contradictory - and the only way someone would suppose that they do
is to try and introduce 'evil' into them as if it's part of His attributes. That's
why for me, I would suppose by that very same rule of logic, 'darkness'
presupposes that light does not exist! But, of course, that would only be a
big laugh.

I also mentioned that some of the characteristics attributed to God contradicted some of his actions and behaviour in the Bible.

Thank you again for sharing with me, and I'd like to thank all who've made
challenging inputs, no less nferyn, even if I don't agree with some of his
logic.

And to you too, a hearty thank you.

@KAG,

It's interesting when convictions can be stated as clearly as you've done, and
I appreciate the fact that you've helped this to be easier for me at least, even
though I still would not agree with some of the ideas expressed.

There are a few things to bear out:

(a) the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not to save humans from God; rather
it is to save humans from His wrath on sin.

(b) the sacrifice is divinely applied throughout all ages  - past, present and future,
even though it happened at a specific point in history, so that those in the era
before Jesus was born (Jews and non-Jews alike) could benefit from the grace of
the atonement, as I'm persuaded is what Rom. 5:10-18 seems to teach.

What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? They also
will be judged (if you permit the term) on the basis of what light they had in the
period they lived their lives. This is explained in Romans 2:6-11 and the summary
is that those who pursued 'good' or 'evil' will be rewarded accordingly either way
for whatever course they pursued.

And children? I'm also persuaded that children are innocent and those who die
in whatever circumstances (war, disaster, disease, murder, etc.) do not get sent
to hell. This seems to be implied in Jesus words in Matt. 18:14 & 19:14 - and to
just quote of the first:

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little
ones should perish."

You notice my use of "I'm persuaded" as not alll Christians will be persuaded of
the same thing, and I'm open to the persuasions and views of others.

It's true that at the present discourse the reasons for going to heaven or hell
may not be all that central; yet it's not correct to assume that "an omniscient
God can intentionally make many of his most beloved creatures just to be
punished infinitely". No, 'infinite punishment' was and is not His intent in creation
and the issues would be better helped when we keep them in their proper
perspectives.

I'm persuaded that God is both loving and holy - and the understanding of His
holiness would necessitate divine judgement upon evil, especially when He
had left a warning to the effect. This takes into account those who might not
have heard the Gospel, but who know in their consciences that somethings
are considered right and others wrong. And I dare add here that this includes
people who go by the name "Christian" though they contradict the pursuits
of "good".

The preceding should not be taken as an attempt at "preaching" to you, lol. . .
but how else would I have been able to explain why I don't agree with some
of the views you expressed? In anycase, I'm deeply persuaded that God's
attributes would not presuppose that He "intentionally" damns His beloved
creation; but at the same time, I don't see how a holy God would glibly pass
over "evil" simply because He is omnibenevolent.

I've enjoyed your piece and the challenges posed. Warm regards.

It's okay for you to present a case and hide behind an idea you're unable to
sustain, only to show up with a joke. At least, it eases the tension.

You guys are too wordy. How can I refute 2 pages of raw, condensed text when I have work to do?

No vex - most often I work and answer from my office as well.

Gwaine:

@KAG,

It's interesting when convictions can be stated as clearly as you've done, and
I appreciate the fact that you've helped this to be easier for me at least, even
though I still would not agree with some of the ideas expressed.

There are a few things to bear out:

(a) the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not to save humans from God; rather
it is to save humans from His wrath on sin.

You say potato, I say if she is indeed omniscient, and omnipotent, then she designed it that way. She created the rules, and man with the potential to sin, so she could be wrathful at the sins of man. So basically, Jesus' sacrifice really was to save us from God

(b) the sacrifice is divinely applied throughout all ages - past, present and future,
even though it happened at a specific point in history, so that those in the era
before Jesus was born (Jews and non-Jews alike) could benefit from the grace of
the atonement, as I'm persuaded is what Rom. 5:10-18 seems to teach.

What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? They also
will be judged (if you permit the term) on the basis of what light they had in the
period they lived their lives. This is explained in Romans 2:6-11 and the summary
is that those who pursued 'good' or 'evil' will be rewarded accordingly either way
for whatever course they pursued.

Fair enough, that would make some sense to me, even though I have met Christians who have unequivocally stated that those before Christ, would be condemned because they didn’t accept Jesus as their personal Lord and saviour. So, it would seem that it isn’t actually necessary to accept Jesus personally, as long as you follow the empathic edict of "love your neighbour as yourself", or do I have it wrong?

And children? I'm also persuaded that children are innocent and those who die
in whatever circumstances (war, disaster, disease, murder, etc.) do not get sent
to hell. This seems to be implied in Jesus words in Matt. 18:14 & 19:14 - and to
just quote of the first:

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little
ones should perish."

You notice my use of "I'm persuaded" as not alll Christians will be persuaded of
the same thing, and I'm open to the persuasions and views of others.

I more or less agree with that, but doesn't that cotradict scriptures like "all have sinned, "? I also remember reading a writer of the A.W Pink school of thought, who provided a lot of scriptures to back up the belief that babies go to hell. In any case, it would seem God (or the characteristics you've attributed to her) does not revel in damning babies, so I'll leave that bit.

It's true that at the present discourse the reasons for going to heaven or hell
may not be all that central; yet it's not correct to assume that "an omniscient
God can intentionally make many of his most beloved creatures just to be
punished infinitely". No, 'infinite punishment' was and is not His intent in creation
and the issues would be better helped when we keep them in their proper
perspectives.

But if she is omniscient, then it was her intent to send a large amount of her creatures to hell, a punishment that really serves absolutely no purpose (at least from my perspective) in the grand scheme of things, well except from being some kind of a sadistic sport for the almighty.

I'm persuaded that God is both loving and holy - and the understanding of His
holiness would necessitate divine judgement upon evil, especially when He
had left a warning to the effect. This takes into account those who might not
have heard the Gospel, but who know in their consciences that somethings
are considered right and others wrong. And I dare add here that this includes
people who go by the name "Christian" though they contradict the pursuits
of "good".

What would be right, wrong and good though? Many Christians of time past knew in their consciences that slavery was right, and many even used Biblical verses to show that it was right, would they be denied heaven? Going farther back, many people did things they knew were right in ther hearts, like killing babies, women and children, because YHVH commanded them to do just that. I some instances, when they did right by their consciences, they were maimed, amongst other things, by those following YHVH. So what happens in those instances?

The preceding should not be taken as an attempt at "preaching" to you, lol. . .
but how else would I have been able to explain why I don't agree with some
of the views you expressed?

Oh, I don't mind being preached at, and I appreciate you taking teh time to actually discuss your point of view.

In anycase, I'm deeply persuaded that God's
attributes would not presuppose that He "intentionally" damns His beloved
creation; but at the same time, I don't see how a holy God would glibly pass
over "evil" simply because He is omnibenevolent.

It's a problem that stems from her omniscience though. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omni benevolent God could always just have stopped the creation of those to be condemned for flimsy "sins", or if the Omni- God was hell bent (no pun intended) on creating flawed creatures she knows will be "evil" and "sinful", then she could always mete out a punishment to fit the crime, coupled with given the damned the opportunity to learn from the punsihment and grow from it. Just off the top of the head of a mere mortal.

I've enjoyed your piece and the challenges posed. Warm regards.

As have I, and i thank you.

@KAG,

I'll guarantee you just this: that the collective testimony of scripture never supposes
that Jesus' sacrifice was to save us from God, but rather to save us from His wrath.
There's a difference between God Himself and His wrath on sin. Also, man was not
created sinful but rather chose to be sinful as is indicated in Eccl. 7:29 -

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought
out many inventions."

Man indeed has the potential to sin; but is he incapable of living a righteous life by
God's help? If man chooses to live in sin, it presuppoes that a holy God will judge
what is sinful especially where He has both warned about its consequences and
also offered a provision in Christ's sacrifice to deal with the question of sin itself.

¤¤¤

Well, to be sure, loving one's neighbour applies to both the past and the present
dispensations. The difference is in the principles of either eras - (a) before the
first advent of Christ, man was under the Law (the Jews) and conscience (non-
Jews); and (b) since Christ, man is called to live by faith. That is why for us as
Christians, we're persuaded of the necessaity of accepting/receiving Jesus
personally.

¤¤¤

Lol, I'll pass on the question of 'damning babies', for like I said earlier: not every
Christian would be persuaded about the same things about these matters. I'd
rather at the present retain the persuasion that babies are not damned to hell.

¤¤¤

Omniscience does not translate into an idea of 'divine sport' simply because a
holy God judges sin and evil. To be sure, He would desire every single person
who ever lived to come to the knowledge of His saving grace; but a rejection of
that offer invites His wrath - so, the issue really is a matter of balance between
the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.

Your observation about "right, wrong and good" is interesting, but here are two
things: (a) using the name of Christ for atrocities of any kind does not in any way
excuse the perpetrator from divine judgement, even though they assert that they
are "Christian"; (b) in the Old Testament dispensation, YHVH's command to the
Jews resulting in the killing of people should be understood in contexts of those
events - and it would require a whole volume for me to walk you through that.

In the latter case, Abraham's discourse with God in Genesis 18 gives us some
insight about His dealings when the patriarch asks: "Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right?" (verse 25). Certainly, He would - that was even the reason
why He'd come down to check out the dealings of the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah in order to certify that He was going to deal as their works required
(verses 20-21).

Whenever these questions of the wars and killings in the OT arise, it would be
well to not be too hasty to generalise issues, but rather to look for the underlying
factors that led to such. On the whole, I'd echo a line from an OT text about the
dealings of God in this regard:

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants
the prophets." [Amos 3:7]

and I think this is consistent with what happened in Genesis 18 where we read:

"And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do. . .?" (vs. 17)

But there again, my views are not authority for other Christians as they may have
their own persuasions about these matters, and I'd be grateful to learn where I get
it wrong.

¤¤¤

Here's what I see as regards the observation in your last but one paragraph:

An all-knowing (omniscient) God ought not necessarily to have 'stopped the
creation of those to be condemned for flimsy "sins" ' as surely as that He'd
not created "flawed creatures" - look again at Eccl. 7:29 quoted earlier: man
was indeed created upright, but he exercised his 'choice' to be sinful; and
also God in omnibenevolence offered Adam a chance to live and 'learn from'
what ensued in Genesis 3 (see particularly verse 17 where God only cursed
the ground for Adam's sake - 'a punishment to fit the crime' perhaps?).

¤¤¤

My gratitude for your patience to both reason with and challenge me thus far,
and I hope that even where my replies may not have sufficiently addressed
your concerns, we'll both have the grace to enjoy the discourses both ways.

What is "real"?

funny we argue about "right" and "wrong".

What is the "truth"?

Reality exists only within the parameters of the mind. Outside the mind nothing exists not even God. "Spirituality" is a term humans (and humans only) ascribe to any occurence they don't understand. Just as has been said, man is his greatest dupe.

Cogito, Ergo Sum . . .

@Gwaine

All I can say is thanks. You've defended our position really well.

A fool has said in his heart that there is no GOD but I will like you to know that there is God and He is real OK , do not be like Thomas Pain , Charles Darwin and co even in our own contry here many people like , Tai Solarin etc, are people that live in this world and yet God is watching OK, and yet if all these people die , they will be said that he has gone to be with the Lord, which Lord is that the one they defy when they are alive or which one the one they make of themselves.

@KAG and company: Is Physics the only descipline in human field of knowledge? Does human have unlimited knowledge in its history, analysis from a dt? Is it not true that human of yesteryears might argue against what we know as possibility or absolute today? Is is not more than likely that there will be a new knowledge 'considered more advance than today's best knowledge' tomorrow and beyond, if human continue to advance?

Finally, can you use Physics 'please no help from Biology or Chemistry or other scientific descipline' to explain the existence of what we know as human, today, 'a classification that you and me belong to', please hurry! If you can not do this, convincing all of us, without any doubt, please how can you then use it to explain the 'Superior Being that those who believe in His existence call GOD the Almighty'? Please think and do not give us the ambiquous song and dance you use in every entry you have made so far!