@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:
@Vex-Man said in Fact check with Pet: Can you prove God's existence? Part I:
You have missed the point. Just because one island is bigger than the other does not mean it exists.
The point is not which island is bigger. The point is how many trees can be found in both islands. I can think of an island which has a great number of trees, but I can think of another island which has more trees than previous one. I can count how exactly they are in numbers. Can’t I ? B an island has greater number of trees than that of island A. Island C has more trees than that of island B. And so on. Take the example of bigger island now. I can measure the exact length of island with kms, then i can conceive one more island which is bigger than previous one. There might be more more more island and none of them would really exist.
As I said, you have missed the point: You cannot conclude from the greatness or greaterness or more-number-ness of anything (other than God) to its existence. The only reason why this works with that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of, because the fact that you cannot think of anything greater is what defines it. The island with its number of trees is not defined by the fact that you cannot think of anything greater. God however is defined as that-which-is-greater-than-anything-you-can-think-of and thus His existence necessarily follows from that definition.
Just because someone who exists is more evil than someone who doesn't, does not mean he exists.
‘Greatness’ or 'perfectness' or 'absolute one' is just a property and property cannot be reduced to existence. There has been a lot of debate among philosophers on this subject. Kant really won this debate. ‘Evilness’ is also a property. This argument has been refuted by Hume and Kant together.
This argument works only with the God of above definition, and with nothing and noone else.
This is not true. The argument was given by Anselm and he himself said about ‘being’.
Philosophers and words ... wether its a God or a being is not relevant. What is relevant is only the definition greater than anything that can be thought of not about wether its a being or God.
Check this argument from internet. Kant compared two beings A and B. It is plausible to suppose that a sufficient condition for entity A being greater than entity B is that A has all and only the properties that B has except that A has, in addition, a property P that makes A more valued or prized than B. On this account, a judgment that A is a greater entity than B, given that A is exactly the same as B, except that A exists and B does not, assumes that existence is a property of A. However, the assumption that existence is a property of objects is a very controversial one; and insofar as the ontological argument makes this assumption, it is not a dearly sound argument. Kant's point still has force:
By whatever and by however many predicates we may think a thing-even if we completely determine it-we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that this thing is. Otherwise, it would not be exactly the same thing that exists. but something more than we had thought in the concept; and we could not, therefore, say that the exact object of my concept exists.
Indeed, and since the definition is not about a 'being' and wether it has the property 'existence' but simply that-which-is-greater-than-anything-that-can-be-thought-of. These are my words, this is the definition as I wrote it. So please do in the future stop refuting other people's (e.g. Anselms) concrete words. Try to refute mine instead.
I (me, not Anselm) am not saying, that the God I think of as non-existing is the same as the God that has existence. I perfectly do agree, that the existing God is something completely different from the non-existing god I'm thinking.
And I do disagree with the notion, that something that does exist is not greater than something that doesn't. In fact I don't even have to disagree with: here is my defition of greater "being better or more or of more subsance in any way than something else".
But other than that the argument is sound, and it does not work for Satan, because Satan is not that "above which nothing greater can be thought".
Again, ‘greater’ is just a property like ‘more evil'. Satan is one “above which nothing more evil can be thought”. Existence of devil is perfect than that of non-existence.
True, an existing devil is more evil than a non-existing devil. But he's not in an absolute sense greater. His greatness does not define him. From my definition of God you can see, that He's defined by His greatness alone. You can think of a lot of things that are greater than the devil, even the most evil, and the greatest existing devil: God for example, or you, since you are less evil than the devil you are in fact greater than the devil... Are you starting to get what makes this definition of God special?
There are lots of believers and theologians who both accept that God exists and the devil, for the devil is not defined as that below which nothing more evil can be thought.
This argument was based on old testament and it itself said, “the fool has said in his heart, that there is no God”.
You just need to use the reductio ad absurdum technique: I can define “Ultimate Underwear” as the greatest underwear that can be conceived (e.g. it washes itself, it doesn’t stink, it fits all waists, etc). By Anselm’s logic this underwear must exist. Similarly, the greatest possible potato chip, dog, cricket bat, and so on, must exist. This is false.
Yeah, as explained before, this argument does not work for the greatest XYZ. It only works for The Greatest.
The devil is defined as simply a created being, like you or me, who has completely decided against God.
Evolved being only if we consider ourselves*.
No, I did mean created, not evolved... I believe in God and I believe we are being created, just like the devil and anything else that is not God. This is the definition I was referring to. No need to introduce another concept here. It is irrelevant if there was an evolution or not, to the question wether we are created or not. And the devil as he is defined in the christian world view is not evolved or developed. He just made an eternal decision against God.
No, I am not changing or dragging the topic like a politician does.
Let's forget what a Hindu or Muslim says. Come to the logic, which is the main point. I am using the term universal god instead of christian god or any other religion God. The word 'HE' is used for 'UNIVERSAL GOD'. I got you now, what you were tying to say.
Our premise is- he is the absolute one because he is the total of all things. In other words, he is the creator of all things or he is the originator of all things(including everyone of us). His greatness is defined by his absoluteness sense.
If a conclusion is true, if its all premises must be true. The above premise for a particular conclusion is given.
Is your premise true ? No, it is not. If you think your premise is true, you have to give me another argument to prove that he created us.
You forgot about the most peaceful religion of this whole effing universe is atheist - Jainism. They do not even kill insects, nor they kill crops-worms. The Jains preach a doctrine of utter nonviolence. While the Jains believe many improbable things about the universe, they do not believe the sorts of things that lit the fires of the Inquisition. You probably think the Inquisition was a perversion of the "true" spirit of Christianity. Perhaps it was. The problem, however, is that the teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries.
People. Let me remind you that we are talking about people. People can interpret anything into anything, like the Nazi's interpreted that it was okay to kill millions of Jews into Nietzsche's philosophical texts.
Self-contradiction vs interpretation. I am talking about self-contradictions, not about interpretations. Nietzsche's philosophy had been made ambiguous and incoherent, allowing loose interpretation. This ambiguity prompted Nazi interpreters to choose a context that supported Nazi literature and prophesy.
The old testament was full of approx 300 self-contradictions and new testament has approx 200 self-contradictions itself. This is what your new testament says about enemies-
Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.
Now compare two things- 1. Ambiguity in an atheist philosopher’s texts
2. Self-contradictions not ambiguity in two testaments together. Suppose I grant you self-contradictions are somehow same as interpretation, both testaments are words of your god. Who is more authoritative for you ? A god or a human/an atheist ? An atheist philosopher has just a degree -Ph.D.
Priests of churches have given God position of say Superhero, and made his fans' believe strictly in its infallibility and truthfulness. And presented him as an ideal. And it's absurd.
The new testament is pretty clear about killing: They brought an adulterous woman before Jesus, and asked him to comply with the law and thus stone her. He says: Who has no sin, should throw the first stone. Jesus does not speak muddled about such things! He clearly does not condemn even the greatest sinner (adultery was seen as one of the greatest sins)
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.
All who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. Rom.2:12.
Where there is no law there is no sin or transgression. Rom.4:15.
The law was the result of sin. Gal.3:19.
Sin is the result of breaking the law. 1 Jn.3:4.
Those of “God” cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:9.
Those of “God” can sin. 1 Jn.1:7 8.
• Paul says that he was the chief of all sinners. 1 Tim.1:15.
He who commits sin is of the devil. Children of God cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:8-10
and he asks his disciples to give those who beat them on their left cheek their right to beat too.. So, there really is no interpretational room for killing heretics or witches or anything of the like…
New testament is clear about witches but old is not. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exod 22:18)
It is not surprising that people statistically assume that atheists are more readily doing evil than believers.
I see, you bring communism vs Nazism in every conversation. Why don’t you check pornhub and try to insert a word a ‘priest’ or ‘church’ in search ? My friend told to me a day before yesterday that he was enjoying some gangbang porns of christian priests. As you know I am an atheist, I do not believe in anything very quickly. After-all, I do not watch porns (watching porns may decrease brain's grey matter) so I tried to look for internet data instead. https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/stories/hidden-wounds-christians-say-rape-is-common-persecution-method-against-women/
History is the victim of the statistics- 30 percent fights for the name of religion
Rest 70 percent- not for the name of atheism but they were fought for resources, land acquisition and border disputes.
Very true. And even those 30 percent of wars in the name of religion are not actually because of religion. They too are because the believers (people again) want more power, influence, fame, money or resources.
St, Augustine’s concept of just war was responsible for those wars because expressions of concern for the salvation of those who killed enemies in battle, regardless of the cause for which they fought was common. (I am not certain, probably some people again misinterpreted him)
I will write down those 30 percent wars- Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Syrian civil war and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Religious elements are present in those wars. Some other wars are the first and second crusades, french wars of the religion, thirty years wars, battle of las navas de tolosa, fitna (7th to 11th centuries), Mughal and ottoman wars. Wars have been integral part of Islamic faith since the time of Muhammad because spreading their territory means spreading their faith (jihad). They call kafir (truth concealers) to every non-muslims.
Communism did not fight for the name of atheism, Nazism did fight for the name of religion.
Nazism did not fight for religion either, they fought for their ideology.
Nazism did fight for their own political religion. Communism was a doctrine made against capitalism.
Communism fight for their doctrine and atheism does not have a doctrine. Communism has a dogma so as christian-ism has. Communism has heroes marx, stalin, mao, lenin and they were founders of marxism, maosim, leninism etc. Athe is not a guy like christ, mao or marx.
Communism is an atheistic ideology. Atheism and materialism are its core principles. And equality. Marx was a philosopher, like many atheists.
Marx was an atheist, materialist philosopher but he was not a founder of materialism, nor he was a God. He may be a god for communists just like christ may be a god for christians. The founders of materialism were Greek philosophers Thales, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Democritus. The first indian materialist brahaspati or charvaka was born in India. As per as I know, brahaspati was so much ethical guy that his preaching can be found in Jainism and Buddhism (two most peaceful religions). Now come to the first materialist philosopher Thales, he has said nothing about equality or non-equality. I am giving you a wikipedia article- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_of_Miletus
Which materialist (except of communist philosophers) has said "thou shalt have no matter before me" or "all people are economical-socially equal". ?
Atheism is not an ideology nor it is a philosophy. Atheism is just 'lack of belief in God' or 'there is no god'. Take the first first definition now, it is the lack of belief because theists do not give them evidences for their god, they just can claim.
Mao and Lenin were politicians and serial killers...
No doubt many murderers have been atheists (Stalin, Mao, etc.) but their main reason for killing was something other than their lack of belief in a god.
Christian communism is also a branch of Marxist communism.
Is the fact that someone thought some contradictory combination of two things goes together an argument?
No, this is not an argument. People (christian communists) can interpret whatever they want. Those people are responsible for their own activities.
Communism is said to be a political religion. They should read Jainism books and follow it first rather than believing in any thing else. It’s true that the tyrannical communist regimes of Mao and Stalin were opposed to religion, with religious belief discouraged and punished under their rule. This had less to do with atheism and more to do with the threat of religion as competition with their own tyrannical plans. Totalitarian regimes are built on dogma and fear, not freedom of speech and inquiry. In this way, they greatly resemble religion.
Some religions. It is not a coincidence that the idea of freedom of speech developed in christian countries (yes back then they were still all christians).
Absolutely true for some religions and christian countries are still the most supportive nations for freedom of speech
The catholic church made one big mistake: It did fight certain things that seemed to contradict the doctrine. For example Galileo's world view. The mistake is clear today: Wether the earth is flat has absolutely nothing to do with theology. That the earth is flat is not even in the bible! But back then people did think this was an attack on faith. Of course it was not, and this is clear today. But many people did not understand. In fact Galileo might have been the only one who really understood what he was talking about... And he was a christian so he clearly understood too, that there was no contradiction.
It did fight for darwin’s evolution as well. The earth is flat in bible though
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable (1 Chronicles 16:30)
Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm (Psalm 93:1)
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable (psalm 96:10)
People make mistakes. And the church apologized for it a few 100 years later (the church
needs a few 100 years for everything it does btw....)
Yes, churches apologized to Darwin after 150 years
In effect, these leaders essentially created religions and inserted themselves at the top as new deities. The problem with communism, however, is not that it is too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.”
Which is always the danger of any kind of doctrine. This includes of course atheism and genderism and any religion...
Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.
The doctrine is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Now tell me what type of political, economical or theory/policy was made by thales ? Again, ideology is marxism or lenisninsm not atheism. What are the ideals of atheism ? The first founder of atheism and materialism together was Epicurus. Lemme give you a link for a wikipedia article about him en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
Now press ctrl plus F and type the term ‘equal’ (related to politics and economics) , if you can find anything about it, lemme know.
Atheism is not a doctrine or a belief system again. Atheism does not have a particular holy book which you have to read five times per day (for Muslims) and one time per week compulsory (for Christians). Even though, we atheists read their books, we just take like it is written or said by a human. We do not think they are the words of some authority. Opposed to it, when someone does not want to read testament books, your priests say, "vex man you are possessed by a devil". I have heard this statement from my ex-christian American friend.
Atheism is just lack of belief, the doctrine is marxism. The lack of belief is there because lack of claims are given for god which cannot constitute an evidence.
This cult of personality are not derived from atheism, and it is hard to see how one could argue that its activities were representative of atheists as a whole.Indeed, many free, irreligious nations, such as Denmark and Sweden, are among the most peaceful and prosperous countries in the world. The point, however, is not to say that atheism necessarily causes people to be happier or more prosperous. What is clear, however, is that atheism does not lead to violence, tyranny or genocide any more than religiosity guarantees a peaceful and prosperous nation.
Of course you can say that atheism isn't communism, and you are right (even though 99% of communism is clearly atheistic).
yes because first term atheism has nothing to do with politics, economics and term communism is an ideology.
People are joining communism because they want to join politics. Why they want to join politics in a deeply religious country ? Because communist party is just a little party and two big ruling political parties are not giving them even a fuck.
I have met those communists and they cannot even argue for god’s non-existence. Nor they want to convince someone about his non-existence. You too can meet German communists and ask a question why did they became a communist.
I'm just saying that statistically atheistic ideologies have done a lot more harm than religious ones.
Your comparison is absurd- atheistic ideology vs religious ideology. You left a big part of atheism who does not obey any hero or does not have any ideal.
Are you sure religious ones ? Communism and capitalism both are actually political religions. Both did not give freedom of speech to anyone. They both are equal to islam.
All religions have their heroes and doctrines, atheism (non-religious) does not follow any ritual or pop or a hero.
Christ- the hero of Christianity, drowned the entire population in gen 6 (ot). His character (in ot) is jealous, petty, unjustified, vindicative, bloodthirsty, unforgiver, homophobic, ethnic cleaner, racist, bully, capricious malevolent, sadomasochistic, fillicidal, pestilential.
This is just numbers and facts, so I'd be very careful to say that there is no danger in atheism. In fact I'm pretty sure that the presence of atheism and atheistic movements did further the strength of the communistic ideology.
German Christians supported the Nazis in the belief that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler himself often referenced God and Christianity. But that doesn't mean he killed people for the name of Christian religion.This is why i was saying nazism too is a political religion itself.
Communism cannot take root so easily in a country that is deeply religious.
Communism cannot stabilise its root even in a tiny atheist religious country like Bhutan. Marxist is banned there, even though most of bhutanies are religious atheists (Buddhists).
The world’s religions have rules and holy books that tell their followers what’s wrong or right and how to behave. Thus, it is reasonable to hold a religion accountable for the message that it preaches. There are no holy atheist scriptures, no atheist pope and no atheist rituals, tenets, creeds, code or authority. Atheism cannot be held accountable for the activities of atheists in the same way that religion can be judged by its doctrine because atheism has no doctrines.
As noted above I'm not judging atheism by its doctrine here, but by the effects that atheistic doctrines had in total numbers. And I'm just saying it is safe to assume, that there might be some danger in it, even if there are atheistic communities that are completely peaceful.
Non-religious atheism has not a doctrine nor it is a doctrine, it has none ideal of life. Jainism has its doctrines but it is a religious atheism not non-religious atheism.
Worse still is the concept of hell, where non-believers suffer in eternal torment simply for disbelieving in God. Indeed, this torture is supposedly granted even to theists who believe in the wrong gods. If the Christian religion is the “right” one, every Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jew would burn in hell for eternity (John 3:18-36, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 and Revelation 21:8)
I'm too tired to find you the quote after writing you such a long response, sorry ... the catholic teaching is quite clear about the fact that non-believers can be saved. What it says however is that they will all be saved through Jesus Christ. There is no way around Him. You will meet Him when you die. And you can then (at the latest) accept Him and be saved, or say: "you have no right to judge me" and thus condemn yourself.
If non-believers can be saved, what are your views on below genesis (new testament)
Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.
and this rule is the same for other religions that believe in the concept of hell, such as Islam:
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. (Quran 4:56)
So, do not fear God, only adore Him (the "fear of God" in the bible does not mean being scared, it means to know that God is Holy and to lower your head in front of Him, so He can lift you.)
An all-loving god would surely not damn his children to an eternity of torture simply for being born into a culture that believes in the wrong deity, follows the wrong holy book or attends the wrong type of church services.
As said above the all-loving God does not condemn his children to an eternity of torture for that at all. But He requires them to accept Himself at least when they meet Him (Jesus Christ) from face to face.
What if someone does not accept him while meeting with him ? That someone completely rejects him. Think about it.
All who call on the "Lord" will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.
Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.
Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.
The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.
Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the "Lord" to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.
Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.
Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.
I do not interpret any book so do not think I've interpreted/misinterpreted it. I read any holy book like I read other books. I really think that only old testament must be more valid than new testament because no first edition of your holy bible book exists anymore. I am pursuing conversation with a christian, not a jew so I would talk about new and old testaments both onwards. Old testament contains sacred texts for Jewish faith.
