How many gods are there?

Do demi-gods and half-breeds, such as Hercules and Jesus, count as gods? What percentage of god "blood" has to be present in a being to make it still qualify as a god?

 

A disingenuous atheist isn't an atheist.

The reason I say disingenuous atheists is the same reason that Craig uses the term to describe some atheists here is a excerpt from one of his lectures;

Craig is a joke, so is his book, as I have already stated.

 

You are correct. But who doesn't do that? However, there is another error in your assumptions (I am forever mystified why a member simply does not ask another member what he is thinking instead of attempting to read his thoughts). Anyway, I use any fact or claim empirical or not when it makes sense to my paradigm (How we make sense of our universe in this case a paradigm is a model of reality), but not my beliefs religious beliefs. Those stand or fail of their own accord. Again every human being on earth does the same thing. Everyone has a way they perceive the world. Some claims of science etc are accepted some are rejected from the tiny stuff to the big stuff. I don't have an exclusive on that! I beleive in evolution as well (well most of it) however it is diametrically opposed to much of Christian ideology. Understand?

Your figures are off a bit but it doesn't matter. You completely misread my statement! I said the most distant star we can see with the naked eye is 4075 light years away. Some stars are billions of light years away.

With all due respect that is so wrong I won't comment. Well perhaps a word or two. Matter can not be created or destroyed according to science. However in the distant future there will be no stars no atoms etc and the entire universe will die a heat death.

Sorry I will still use the KCA as a component of evidence to support my ideas about God (that exists). Your frustration of not being able to defeat the KCA or in validate it's impeccable logic is noted. It's been exasperating atheist apologists and God haters to the point of near madness for over a thousand years, and probably will continue to do so for at least a thousand more!

Again I understand your frustration, I have spanked many atheists far more learned than I with this argument, as have thousands of theists and nonsecular scientists and philosophers before me. However you should refrain from making non-supportable and truly ignorant statements in your anger. Again I, as most people do the same thing when angry and cornered, and it always comes back to hurt my argument! Most lay people or people not interested in Kants rants and other philosophical nuances have very little knowledge concerning such somewhat advanced topics as Ontological/cosmological arguments (for the existence of God). The reasons for that are many. Anyway a primer; The KCA uses deductive logic. Modern science uses inductive logic which only provides a probability of something being true. The more successful (empirical) tests that are done successfully increase the probability but rarely if ever can prove something absolutely, ie to a certainty of 100%. That is a short coming of the scientific method! The scientist taught to use empirical methods only is at a very serious disadvantage. I might add that most atheists though processes are the same as the 'empirically taught' scientist we are referencing.

Anyway~

Our hapless secular scientist must make what I term an 'inductive leap of faith'. However, Deductive and Modal logic can prove a point if the rules of logic are followed. It is the only way to know something is certain. The KCA is one of those VALID arguments that use impeccable logic to arrive at its reason to exist, ie that God exists!

Think about it! A paradigm is a model of reality, of how we perceive the real world and the universe. An atheist paradigm is how an atheist preceives the world around him.

It doesn't matter. We can debate around that WADR, kind of cowardly position. The reason I consider that kind of atheism (and there are many definitions of atheism) a highly disingenuous ostrich like head in the sand way to hide behind not having to defend ones paradigm is just that. No defense. However, if that is the way you extrapolate reality go for it. However, without the ability to discuss God and such things do not expect to win any debates or make very many points with anyone except for other atheists who beleive that atheism is a state rathe than a way of perceiving reality.

Ha ha ha ahhh' mmmm'... forgive me but where is the evidence? You have ZERO evidence to support your claims of atheism! WADR, I call that the hiding behind the I don't have to defend what I beleive is true defense! Please please before you drown in a quicksand of indefensible radical atheism at least take the time to read some unbiased books about what we have discussed.

Ra'h

 

This has degenerated into a circular discussion about the KCA. To invalidate the KCA one must destroy its premises and as I have said they are as valid today as they were a thousand years ago. I agree with the other member if we want to discuss the nuances of the KCA we should move this discussion elsewhere.

I said I use the KCA as a small component to construct my paradigm. It's evidence for the existence of God just as the fine tuning argument and the fifty or so other evdiences for the existence of God is. The point being that not everyone is going to agree the evidences are valid. So what? I am not asking anyone to agree that the KCA proves that God exists, but simply that it is evidence for Gods existence as is any valid claim. I simply came to the defense of a fellow believer that was getting ganged up on by non believers who were taunting him saying there was no evidence for the existence of God which at best displays the ignorance of the accusers and at worst is a blatant lie. I use the KCA precisely because its the easiest to defend, its never been invalidated (and unless some core scientific knowledge is changed it can't be shown to be invalid) and uses logic and other respected disciplines as a foundation, which most people, even God haters should respect.

So again; There is evidence for the existence of God. That's what this should be about.

Ra'h

 

That should be books, many and papers and lectures. Craig accomplished more by the time he was twenty years old than most of us will do in a lifetime. So I think that your statements about Craig who holds several advanced degrees are a bit silly. BTW, a disingenuous atheist simply means a dishonest atheist, so I think you are mis-defining the world 'disingenuous', unless you think atheists can not be dishonest !

Ra'h

 

I believe that all the world's religions come from different people's interpertations of signals from the same God. I consider myself a Christian, because I believe in Jesus, and understand Christianity best, but I don't write off other religions.

All religious texts were written by men to explain complex concepts to men of the time. While some attempt to tackle God in one all-encompassing concept, others focus on personifying several aspects of God seperately. They're not literal, they're lessons.

 

That is a false assumption. I always consider every piece of evidence, whether it agrees with what I currently think or not. I understand that new evidence may be discovered that would make me change my ideas.

The religious zealot will never change their ideas, and will only consider evidence if it supports their idea of god.

V762 Cas (in Cassiopeia) is 15000 light years away and visible to the naked eye. And my numbers aren't "off" a little bit.

This is a blind assumption based on imagination. There isn't any evidence that would suggest that to be true.

The KCA defeats itself. I don't even have to try. It's been laughed at by this atheist since I first heard of it, which was on this forum. There do not seem to be a lot of religious people who use this argument anymore as it is very obviously ridiculous based on the assumption god is eternal but nothing else can be.

You never did give me any reasons why god can be eternal but the universe cant.

You are projecting your feelings. I feel no frustration.

You "spank" only yourself when you argue with your fingers in your ears.

More of you projecting your feelings onto me.

The idea of KCA being advanced shows the innocence of your argument. Quantum Mechanics tells us that something can not come into existence from nothing. So what do you do? Declare that quantum mechanics is wrong, or admit that KCA is wrong?

Then it would be an atheist paradigm, not the atheist paradigm.

It doesn't matter. We can debate around that WADR, kind of cowardly position.[/quote]

So now I am a coward? Hows that?

What part of my paradigm that you perceive would you attack? What do I need to defend? Why do you think I don't have the ability to discuss god? I am well versed in many religions. I have study more religious texts than most people can name. I have forgotten more theories of gods than most people have ever heard of. It is a topic I have extensively studied. I would contend the only reason anyone believes any of it is because they haven't studied all of it.

Like I just said, there is none, so I have no belief in any of it.

Atheist is what I have been labeled, not because of what I believe, but because of what I do not believe. I don't know why that is so hard for theists to understand. I don't claim there is no god so much as I claim deny your claim that there is. Atheism is a reaction, not a supposition.

Your descriptions of me and my thoughts mean nothing because they are wildly inaccurate. What do you consider to be unbiased? If you are truly unbiased about god, why you you write a book about it?

You should put that in your signature so you don't have to type it after every post.

 

Except there are religion without god(s) and religion who predates judaism. Christianity is just an adaptation of judaism, just like Islam.

 

You are the first person that has expressed the exactly same conclusion that I do without prompting! All religions are attempts to describe the same beloved eternal universe creating God! I choose Christianity because I have to! Ha ha, it is like hearing a truth and then not so true statements. I too think that the other religions range from beautiful to terrifying but do not reject any of them out of hand.

We are somewhat in agreement in that statement. Speaking for Christianity I believe some of the bible is indeed meant to be very nearly precisely literal and read as if reading an eyewitness account. Other parts of the bible are parable etc (the categories are five to ? in number depending which learned (or maybe not so learned*) layperson or biblical scholar one asks) by categories I mean Historical Prophesies Poem Song letters to the churches eyewitness accounts etc..

Thanks so much for your refreshing reply.

* Theistic/philosophical Education is a double edged sword. An unlearned but faithful bible reader can have a much deeper and through understanding of scripture as per scripture’s teachings.

Ra’h

 

Maybe that is true. However, its an validation of truth! If Judaism predates Christianity it simply means that the first truth leads to a more detailed truth later. As more evidence and knowledge emerges the religion is not changed but added to and a more refined truth is revealed. This is how science works too. Additionally Judaism only predates modern Christianity in the written word. The actual events are the same. In other words when God created the universe and the events that came after the creation such as the flood (Noah) the Sumerians may have written about it first, but the Hebrews wrote about the same event. I as a Christian beleive the bibles account is more detailed and more accurate than the Sumerian cuneiform. Of course hard core God haters and even moderate atheists will say that the Hebrew writers plagiarized the Sumerian account. The atheists etc by making that (discredited and horribly unfounded) assumption are able to square their godless paradigm with the evidence.

Ra'h

 

Not maybe... That is true. There are religions without god(s). And there are religions with myriads of gods. Both types are in existence today.

And the israelite used the sumerian and egyptian and many other myths and stories to create an identity for themselves. They don't even take their scripture literally, like the bible thumper in the USA do. It was a political move first, not a religious one.

This isn't bashing your religion, it's a historical fact acknowledge by the jews themselves.
<<< Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed >>>

 

God is older than any of that. Religion doesn't make God. People make religions when they try to understand God.



@RevAnarchist

I don't believe what I do because I HAVE to. That wouldn't really be faith, then, would it? Other than that, we seem to be pretty much in agreement.

I'm not a hardcore biblical scholar. I don't know all the technicalities of what's supposed to be taken literally or not, but I get the feeling that a good bit of it is symbolic, and some lost in translation or misunderstood. For example, take the part that talks about Noah's Ark, and read it once literally, and then again looking for the moral of the story. Which one clicks? Which one inspires faith and understanding?

 

"God is Love"

 

That is kinda true. Neither one is more than a thought.

 

"In the beginning, man created god"

 

Very stupid question. No Gods exist at all.

If you are talking about all the Godes claimed, just start with India. They have a God for every event. I'm sure they would have one for making their sewerage work in fact.

 

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a counter or an attempt to understand what I'm trying to say, so I'll clarify.

God was there all along. Religions come from people trying to understand and report or re-communicate signals from God, and trying to explain what God is.

 

Venus, Aphrodite, Frey, Freya, Bridget, Astarte, Thor, Bacchus, Ilmater, Vainamoinen, Gitche Manitou, Bran, Daghda, Danaan, Donar, the Tuatha De Danaan, Baldur, Bragi, Tyr, Nyame, Ahura Mazda, Baal, Inanna, Ishtar, Set, Bastet, Aten, Amen-Ra, Horus, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Serapis, Apollo, Ares, Athena, Dionysus, Gaia, Hermes, Poseidon, Zeus, Janus, Agni, Ganesha, Rama, Krishna, Yama, Shiva, Vishnu, Ho-Ti, Kannon, Amaterasu, Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, the Morrigan, Manannan, Herne the Hunter, and Kuan Yin.

And let's not forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

Perhaps God was not there all along .. We just dont know.

I think there is a more important question:

If there was no God .. would you live your life any differently?

If the answer is yes .. then I suggest you reconsider how you live your life.

Even if there is a God:

1) none of us knows what God wants and,
2) no human speaks for God

I think if people tried thinking for themselves .. instead of relying on some Religious leaders idea of what God wants .. the world would be a better place.

Of the predominant religions (Islam, Hindoo, Christianity, Judaism) power and control over people is the dominant theme.

 

Why make the suggestion ? I mean, do you suggest that Miss J lives her life as if there was no God ?

That's only your opinion .. I think God wants me to be as much like Jesus as I can, or at least have my aim as such.

 

Prospect: Why make the suggestion ? I mean, do you suggest that Miss J lives her life as if there was no God ?

I have no idea how Miss J livers her life.

The point I am making is that one should do good deeds and refrain from evil to make the world a better place, not because you think a God tells you that you "have to" or because of the threat of eternal (*)(*)(*)(*)ation.

 

That's only your opinion .. I think God wants me to be as much like Jesus as I can, or at least have my aim as such.

You can believe the story of Genesis 3:22 .. that man was given knowledge of the Gods (to know good and evil). This does not mean that you know what God thinks on every issue.

The Bible is quite contradictory in relation to what God thinks. The commandments say .. do not Kill .. yet God commands Israel to Kill.

2) no human speaks for God

There are many that "claim" to speak for God, The Pope, Imam's, Pentacostals, and various other religious leaders.

Unfortunately these folks who make this claim contradict each other. Who is right ?

 

Your suggestion to miss J is that if she lives her life "doing good deeds and refraining from evil" because she believes God wants her to, that she should quit ?

 

Not at all .. she should do good deeds regardless of whether or not God exists.

 

That's true, but allot of Christians do indeed believe that Jesus telling us to keep the commandments,including his own commandment, is exactly what God wants us to aim for.

You can say that he didn't speak for God but that is only your opinion.