Atheism

Bi0Hazard: But if logic is part of our reality, and God is not bounded by any of the rules of our reality, then surely God is not bounded by logic? Isn't that your implication? That basically excludes deduction as well.

admin: But if logic is part of our reality, and God is not bounded by any of the rules of our reality, then surely God is not bounded by logic?
Logic is not part of our reality. Logic exists independent of our universe, exists in every possible world. Of course, you would say that is nonsense since your a naturalist and think that it is creation of our mind.Yes, I am saying that God is not bound by the rules of our reality.

admin: I think you misunderstand. Faith isn't believing in what you know to be impossible. Faith is whenever you see that there's only a tiny chance that something is true but you bet on that chance anyway.

Dassault Papillon: Well, I believe Christianity is impossible because 1) God makes no logical sense to me, and 2) Jesus' resurrection seems highly implausible even if God did exist.

Bi0Hazard: So in your view is logic necessary also? Then that has an inherent contradiction with the prime mover and the omnipotence point as well.

Of course, as I've said and you've acknowleged, these arguments can get very detailed and philosophical, even for a debate, let alone a forum. I find myself reading a lot of Karen Armstrong, William Craig etc simply because atheist media is fairly arrogant (because honestly it takes a certain amount of arrogance to actually seek to convert people to atheism lol, at least compared to other religions) and also philosophical journals are good. There should be something like New Scientist but for religion. If I had a printing press I'd seriously consider publishing a magazine like that. XD

admin: Okay, there are plenty of objections that could be made to Christianity (or religion in general), but those seem kind of weak to me.
Why does the idea of God make no logical sense to you?

As for Jesus's resurrection, well, the whole point behind it was that it's physically impossible. Imagine if Jesus escaped from the tomb and said "Hey guys, I swooned back there but I recovered after a few days in the tomb so I barely survived the ordeal but I'm okay now." Why the heck would any of his followers worship Him for that?

Dassault Papillon: As I've said before, there's two basic kinds of logic that apply here.

Inductively God makes no logical sense because God cannot be observed.
Deductively it depends on how you define "God".

I used to be an Anglican Christian, and was baptized into the church during a period where I was like "ehh... maybe" (I was like 10-11ish). What convinced me maybe a year later was the omnipotence paradox. I couldn't reconcile the idea that God could do anything, with essentially Russel's paradox ie that a set containing everything, also contains itself. If God has unlimited power, that unlimited power must include unlimited power. In numerical terms this makes sense (ie the value of infinity is technically undefined because infinity is both larger, smaller and equal to infinity) but when you relate that to any sort of physical manifestation it's absurd. For example, God can't microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it.

Since then I've done a lot more reading + thinking + bible study and become more confident in my decision.

Dassault Papillon: Putting aside the physics - it's the evidence that troubles me. In that I see strong textual evidence that it's of a fictional genre.

admin: The "stone too heavy to lift" paradox, I see. I think that instead of attaching to God the abstract label of omnipotent (that is, the idea that He can solve any logic paradox we throw at Him) we should simply regard Him as infinite. This means He's capable of doing anything that it'd normally be possible for an infinite being to do.
The thing that trips me up, though, is the expansion of God. Infinite expansion is both ways: outwards and inwards. This means that God should fill all space that there is. So how would it be physically possible for God to perform any form of movement or action, thought included (when you think about it, thought requires movement)? How could there be a universe with space that He hasn't filled, being an infinite being?

Dassault Papillon: Infinite, as I say, makes no sense attached to something physical. It creates all sorts of mathematical issues.

admin: An infinite being can only control itself through an infinite capability to control. God is capable of understanding Himself simply because His mind is infinite.

If the God of the Bible exists, then only He knows the proper definition of the word "God" as used in the Bible.

admin: So in your view is logic necessary also? Then that has an inherent contradiction with the prime mover and the omnipotence point as well.
I disagree that there is a contradiction, but like you said, arguments on this can get very detailed and can fill books.
I find myself reading a lot of Karen Armstrong, William Craig etc simply because atheist media is fairly arrogant (because honestly it takes a certain amount of arrogance to actually seek to convert people to atheism lol, at least compared to other religions) and also philosophical journals are good.
That is one thing I don't like about the main atheists/God critics. I considered the atheists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss to be very ignorant in their beliefs regarding God. It would be better if there was an modern atheist version of William Lane Craig.

Bi0Hazard: I wouldn't call them ignorant, though Dawkins obviously doesn't go into the philosophy too deeply being from another field. Both generally write for a wider audience. Maybe arrogant and conceited though.

If God is apart of the universe, then he is bound to the rules of the universe.

If God is the universe, then God is bound by his own nature.

The new testament conclusively supports pantheism more. Which actually makes Christianity after Judaism to be closer to hinduism, subsets of paganism, ect.

admin: Ignorant definition- lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
When it comes to the arguments for God and atheism(criticism of God), atheists like Richard Dawkins are ignorant.
Arrogant definition- having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people
Yes, they would be arrogant.
conceited definition- excessively proud of oneself
Possibly, Dawkins is proud of himself when comparing himself to creationists.

Bi0Hazard: Not sure about that. Can you give a particularly egregious example of that ignorance?

Crow: If God is apart of the universe, then he is bound to the rules of the universe.

If God is the universe, then God is bound by his own nature.
Under the pantheist concept of God.
The new testament conclusively supports pantheism more. Which actually makes Christianity after Judaism to be closer to hinduism, subsets of paganism, ect.
Under your interpretation of the new testament.

Bi0Hazard: Under the pantheist concept of God.

Only the second line in that quote is about pantheism. The first line is if God is not patheistic

Under your interpretation of the new testament.

Do you care to interpret it differently? If it is any consolation, the old testament is very anti-pantheistic.