Originally posted by agnostictheist
God made human nature, mind defining that. just what is human nature? that can mean many things!
Yes, many things - including our selfishness, lust, hate, aggression, greed etc.
God made the "world", correct but your point fails to complelety capture the point that the world we are in - is not what was "formed" by God... you also seem not to undertake the possiblity that God had a hand in shaping, but did not make it like "clockwork". thus your statement is very missleading.
...
what about the people whom helped to make it the way, going aganist Gods intent.
Whether it worked 'by clockwork' or not, God supposedly made the entire system, including the nature of the ones who supposedly spoiled it. If he wanted it to remain as a paradise, why did he give 'freewill' to a bunch of flawed creatures? That's just irresponsible.
Imagine a future scenario where a scientist genetically engineered a population of intelligent creatures and then disappeared, leaving only rumours that he even existed and a whole range of 'rulebooks' none of which were unambiguously authorised by him, and unsurprisingly members of the population had different ideas about whether he existed or what he was or which rules were right and there was violence and terrible battles. The responsibility for creating that situation would be with the scientist.
Doesnt have to be, that's one very narrow minded specfic reading of christian theology mainly in taken the bible to literuly, those not exclusively... for example one can argue that the world is a process, and that Gods has an intent, that we could of chosen.
When, as a species, could we have chosen this? In the Garden of Eden? There is no eidence of such a time. Our ancestors back in the Pre-Cambrian era? If you believe in evolution. Or another time? Did we have freewill and face divine judgement when we were slimy amphibians crawling on the mudbanks and fighting over mates and food?
I was just disagree with your point, that doesn't thus mean God does exist.
Yes, and can you justify your disagreement?
Then I suggest you should read christian variants before asserting such a big claim, for example there are many defintions of the term "atheist" - not just yours - which are externally used from christanity too, and so one can argue that it means one that lacks a beleif in God... what about some tribes whom never heard of God, some christians believe that because they don't know, or heard of God, they thus have not rejected, nor is fault of there own so therefore they don't go to hell... yet they can be termed "atheist" - under the one defintion I added above, they are of course more. But it indicates why you point is dangerously incomplete.
Your use of the term 'rejected' is misleadingly close to 'rebelled', which is certainly not the case. I have not 'rejected' God in any emotional sense of shunning allegiance, the only sense I could be said to have rejected him is that I have rejected the hypothesis as a credible one, based on the available evidence. I have rejected the idea that the Earth is hollow, and the existence of elves and the god Vishnu in similar ways.
No not at all, unless you want to put words into ALL atheists mouths - Some simply believe that there is a lack of "evidence" to support the claim of Gods existence, THAT doesn't mean they nesscerly all reject Gods existence, but has your so determined to speak for the whole atheist comunity by all means do so...
Of course I am speaking primarily of atheists like me, however I was unaware the the all-loving one had a different torture in store for those who simply lack belief in God.
For clarity - here is a summary of my position: Until very recently I would have been classed as a 'weak atheist' ie I simply lacked any beliefs in gods. It is not rational to absolute exclude an untestable hypothesis, but there is no evidence to justify a belief in any gods. However, I realized that that in real terms I did have a belief that there was no God, or almost certainly no God. People need to make decisions in order to function otherwise we would be perpetually paralysed with indecision and doubt. It is rational to pick the hypothesis with the most verifiable evidence, greatest logical consistency etc. (This is the difference between rational and irrational belief). So, I do think or believe that there is no God, but a belief should never be an absolute thing, more of a working hypothesis, which is potentially subject to alteration or even complete abandonment - all of my beliefs have a little 'hole' in them. So I believe, but don't know that there is no God.
The claim presented by Yahweh is beyond the "natural", yet IF the exists this God, the natural spun from him thus to argue something is naturalistic Does not argue for or aganist Gods existence, but IF he does exist (which is a different question) then the natural is simply PART of the reason for if God existed HOW would he of done "this".
I have no idea what you are saying.
what makes you so sure that the cultural one is nesscerly exclusive form a "theist" one. "
Because the cultural existence of God, ie' the idea of God can exist independently of the actual existence of a God. No one sane would deny the former, but theists are claiming much more than this for their hypothetical entity. Did he or did he not create the universe, give evolution a helping hand/create mankind 'out of clay', punsh people with floods and plagues, send his 'son' to Earth in a botched attempt to 'save' them and does he or does he not judge us in the afterlife? These are critical questions. If God is no more or less than a cultural phenomenon, then the atheists are correct not the theists. Do you think we can make things real just by believing? If that's true we can change God and change the world just by believing differently.
Intresting claim, now back it up - the point is your provided a argument that lies within the context of the "provable" God IF there exists a transcedent one, is beyond this, that doesn't mean we can't use science - in some form, those not about God himself, but science does not say anything for or aganist God.
There is no scientific evidence for God and plenty of scientific evidence that many aspects of the theistic story, as given in the Bible etc, is simply wrong.
unlikely its more possible it had its origins with some kind of "life circle" hence in early osiris myths he was concerned with a fertilty god
Sokar was a fertility god.
christians will argue that other gods were simply constructed by man - or unless one is a fundie, or maybe not always a fundie, a fallen angel - but God was beyond all this "natural", that doesn't mean that the early monotheistic traditions are thus the true faiths, while I personally believe being a catholic that one is VERY VERY generally correct. the faith, and religion is a "process", and simply stating by natural means does not mean its thus the exclusive opposite, nor does it prove my arguement... notice why I am AGNOSTIC.
Many religious ideas are mutually exclusive. How do you diffentiate the very very generally correct from the incorrect if not on the basis of evidence?
I talked about circular reason already, and againt the point is I never Use the argument to thus declare Gods existence, never argee in doing so either.
Evidence is the most reliable way to discriminate between a credible possibility and a purely hypothetical one. There is no more for God than there is for the tooth fairy and that's the bottom line. Your faith is probably just evidence of the way this particular viral meme-complex has subverted your thinking processes.
assume we have the mere concept of a transdent God (for argument sake he does not exist - this is the given premise, but is not known) how do you suggest we make a fair test for it? we can't nor can one provided evidence for the non-existent (negative claims), so shall we now conlude he thus exists? - NO! should we thus conlude he doesn't NO! But that's slighty different from actually asking for EVDIDENCE for Gods non-existant, right subject matter but they are not the same thing.
I already pointed out that this is the same level of credibility as for any untestable hypothesis we can construct and there are as many as we have imagination to think of them. Do you think it is equally valid as invalid or equally probable as improbable that there are invisible whales in space or that the world was made by a malevolent computer programmer? If not, why not?
The point is simple, that's the claim of God, that's different to the vast majority of other gods!, but unlike you I won't attempt to oversimplfiy things sure, other gods have had character aspects of this sort, but it does not change what is important - that the tests we provide are not suitible.
This makes no sense.
evidence has many forms, it does not proof things, unless beyond a resonible doudt, but evidence has for has Yahweh is concered can always be argued - reason - with doudt (if the claim is for or aganist) and logic by itself many merely make one wrong with authority.
Don't beat abvout the bush. What evidence have you got?
