Yes, but we understand that an omnipotent eternal being is illogical, because there are some things it cannot do. and if it could do them, it would not be eternal or omnipotent. It is puzzling that our self proclaimed logic prince Seyong I. cannot see this problem.

Yes, and just like god it does not exist.

It is not the only question. Can an omnipotent eternal being end its own existance? No, either it is omnipotent or eternal, not both.
Or nowadays why does the tide come in an out..

Like I stated I dug into this stuff about 20-15 years ago. With books. From the academic world, not "pop-science". I learned to work scientifically at an university. Of course you have to critically examine your sources, especially in history. Old sources are often contradictory and full of lies and propaganda. Works by historians are often contradictory since everyone tries to prove his or her own theories. As a student you have to learn to evaluate sources for bias by cross-referencing and comparing.

Also I did not say that Jesus is an exact copy of any pagan god. Jesus is more of a conglomerate of different traditions an myths. Some examples:

The sacrifice of the king:
In oldey times, when people were suffering from bad harvest etc. they blamed it on their leader/king. That's the problem when you claim your leadership to being a representative of the god(s). Fertility of the land and a powerful (also: in bed) leader were closely linked. So when things got awry, the kings was killed a sacrifce. In tribes with strong ancester worship this was made into an ascension - the king became a god after he was killed. Since kings are powerful men and also have some instinct for survival this tradition later changed. Some poor fella would symbolically be crowned king and then sacrificed. It's in this tradition that Jesus became King of the Jews (he was not of noble birth) and was sacrificed.

Dying and rising:
The most obvious crops god reference is the "eat my flesh, drink my blood". That is what the crops god is all about. The flesh being the fruits of the fields, the blood being the wine. The principles of the crops god and the sun god are closely intertwined since they share the same cycle of death and rebirth. The cyclic god is the companion of the threefold goddess (that is also cyclic but eternal) that consists of the virgin, the mother and the hag (=death), see the Norns in nordic myths and the greek Moires/Fates.
The virgin gives birth to the would-be god hence becoming the mother. (As a side note: Virgin meant the same that bachelor means for men: unmarried woman. The obsession with the hymen came later.)
When the god reached maturity he had to ascend - become a real god. In order to achieve this, he had to die. One common image is the "hanging between heaven and earth", Odin hung himself (nine days, and he even speared himself). The god dies and is after a while resurrected by the goddess (she is life after all). He impregnates new virgin goddess so ascends to become a true god.

Jesus was born by a "virgin". He said a lot of things that connect him to the old crops gods and solar heroes. He is hung between heaven and earth (on a phallic symbol) and the threefold goddess is present in form of the three Marys: Mary Magdalena - the virgin and his companion, his mother Mary and the Mary Salome - she must have been death's symbol. Jesus dies and goes into the underworld (tomb). Then he is resurrected and ascends.

I guess you did not read those articles. You just repeated what you already claimed. Those two articles (one from a christian site) are not unfounded.
As for the Islam: you would have to ask a muslim what he/she made of that. I guess most of them believe in Jesus' death on the cross. Just not in his resurrection.
No. In term of the "inception" it does not matter at all if Jesus really rose from the dead. Look at the situation in the Roman empire at that time. A god figure that was closer to the normal people and tales of impending apocalypse fell on fertile grounds with the lower classes at that time.

Darn, this post got too long and I can't make two posts in a row.

I've been trying to prove something on this topic for most of this thread, so I'm not sure where you think I agreed that that is impossible. Philosophical and logical proofs are a perfectly acceptable way to prove something.

Arguments from authority are actually good to make because authorities on a subject know more about it than people who aren't authorities. The logical fallacy comes in when you appeal to an unqualified authority. However, I wasn't even appealing to science as an authority, I was pointing out that you were undermining it.

I didn't say the idea that we live in a logical universe is held by the vast majority of people, therefore it proves it is correct. Rather, I used the number of people to show that the idea is hardly something that is unique to those who believe in a purely rational creator.

You were recalling my position, so I was informing you of what it was, not making an argument against you.

I told you garbage in, garbage out. Something that is non-logical has no way of being logical. I haven't dismissed your argument because you have not yet even made an argument, and for what you said earlier, it sounds like you don't even intend to make one. You have merely suggested it has a possibility, but I see no reason to consider it to be a possibility, so I see no reason not to dismiss it.

You are correct that the argument involves ontology, but an ontological argument is a specific type of argument that argues from reason alone. So arguments that involve causality or the universe having a beginning are not ontological arguments. It wasn't a big deal, I was just informing you that you had mislabeled it.

They would be qualified authority. If you think they are not qualified, then I left room for you to provide reason to doubt them, but I'm still not seeing anything.

A Strawman is where you misrepresent someone's argument and then argue against that instead of the original proposition. You have not yet even made an argument that would be possible for me to misrepresent and I was not even arguing about heliocentrism. I used it as an example to illustrate how you were rejecting something that you had very little reason to object to because you didn't like it. You have not given me a single reason to object to it, which amounts to rejecting it because you don't like it, so I'd say it's was fairly accurate illustration.

Suggesting something as a possibility isn't a challenge until you actually make an argument for it, which is precisely what I invited you to do. Frankly, it's absurd to demand that I prove that something illogical is impossible, when showing that something is illogical is the normal way of showing that it is impossible.

Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, so your "challenge" is simply dismissed until your provide a single reason to think that it is possible for the universe to not be logical. With good reasons to think the premises are true, no reasons to think they are false, and a valid form, the conclusion follows necessarily. Stating that God had a purpose was not justifying that the universe is rational because that was already done. The purpose is what follows from the later arguments of this being necessarily having an intellect and a will.

You could say the same thing, but if you have no evidence to support that an illogical universe is even possible, as I suspect, then you would by lying. The truth of my belief comes from good reasons for the premises, no reasons to doubt them, and a valid argument where the conclusion necessarily follows. You have not given a single reason to think an illogical universe is even possible, so it is a joke to think we are on even footing.

I repeat, begging the question is when someone's only reason for believing a premise is true is that they already believe the conclusion. I have given good independent reasons to think the premises are true, so this is not begging the question. I don't know who taught you to identify logical fallacies, but I'd ask for your money back.
What a load of crap.
I don't think that it works to say one incarnation couldn't, but a later one could. The question itself is simply illogical, so the answer is no.

This argument is not arguing from our lack of scientific knowledge to say that God must have done it. Rather, I have used scientific arguments that are based on what the best of scientific knowledge tells us about the universe. Furthermore, I've used deductive arguments, so I'm not appealing to God as an explanatory entity, but as a being that necessarily follows from the truth of the premises. Conversely, you seem to be holding to a naturalism of the gaps idea where you don't know what caused something, but you do know there is a naturalistic explanation that fills the gap.

The problem is that even if we learn everything there is to know about a process, such as how rain is caused, science tells us nothing about why it is there is a rain cycle in the first place, so science doesn't show that religious explanations for something are wrong. To give another example, many Christians hold that Evolution is the process that God used to bring forth life on the planet, and no scientific understanding of Evolution can ever confirm or deny that, so science is neutral on that topic. Rather, it is naturalistic interpretations of science that are at odds with religious interpretations.

You're just saying that because I saw through you're pseudo-intellectual bullshit. As Brasas pointed out, your reasoning has more holes than than the entire Swiss production of cheese.

It's impossible to argue with somebody that's as delusional as you are.

Well, I appreciate you took the effort to reply directly (it's the directness I appreciate, not the reply) to most of my points, although I fear it was mostly a waste of your time. My main point with the previous post was that you mainly refuse to honestly acknowledge your opponents' arguments as being valid, instead using all sorts of rethoric.

Since your replies were more direct this time, I will engage you again. To try and go straight to the heart of the argument, we (you and me - not all of us posting) have discussed two topics:
1 - epistemological - about the possibility of knowing something absolutely and the nature of belief
2 - ontological - about the nature of existence as it relates to a metaphysical god

On the first, I am fairly sure we agreed that it is in our human condition impossible to know anything with certainty - therefore we can provide evidence, try to prove, argue about, etc... but we will never truly know, prove or be certain. This leaves room for belief, scientific exploration, postulating premises and philosophical argumentation. If you really disagree with this, I can either go back and find your previous posts and PMs, or re-argue the point. That we agreed about this is particularly important because we are discussing the second point, which is one where IMO any kind of attempt to prove anything is particularly harder given its metaphysical nature.

Then on the second point, you are offering very traditional arguments for the existence of god: a bit of the argument by design, a lot of the cosmological argument, and although I didn't notice it, maybe a bit of the ontological argument. (please note the pronouns, here I refer to The ontological argument... not An ontological argument - all three of these are ontological, but only one is The classical one).

Here is where I dismiss your epistemological distraction (intended or not by you - I consider it a distraction). What you add from modern science to support your arguments is a non factor ontologically. Sure it is evidence, but of what? I can interpret modern cosmology's scientific theories according to a model of physics where inherent randomness is present - therefore assuming, from belief, and without you being able to disprove me - that your cosmological argument premises are false. On the other hand you can interpret quantum mechanics according to a hidden variables model of physics where determinism is merely hidden - therefore assuming, from belief, and without my being able to disprove you - that your cosmological arguments are true.

So, if we do the philosophical approach and ignore both our beliefs regarding what the universe IS like, we are left with several ontological arguments, neither of them new (your main one goes mostly to Aquinas as you know). Being a smart individual, you must certainly have studied the criticisms of your arguments? (Was it Hume that offered the strongest ones?) And yet, I believe you haven't, because you have definitively been very clear throughout this thread in ignoring them as illogical (as per your semantical rethoric and beliefs).

Let me repeat the main alternatives I see to your postulation/argumentation that the universe was caused by god. The universe might have caused itself, without need for god. The universe might be eternal, also without need for god. (check the attach if you want - even if it is a simplification). Now I happen to be content to leave these options as logical equivalents. I know which one I believe and understand the consequences of same - but that's my personal opinion or my personal truth as you may call it. Per the above, it should be clear why I take (and believe you should as well) neither of these as stronger than the others epistemologically or inherently. They are options about metaphysical reality - by definition outside of our domain of knowledge.

You however are the one trying to prove one of these in particular. Yet you have refused to offer proofs for your premises. You postulate them as self-evident and appear to be so arrogant as to believe that all of us that don't see them as evident are morons. So the question I have to you is: Are you really interested in confronting your beliefs and your faith? Or are you just posing? Because if you are serious you should not reject out of hand a valid opposing possibility because you disbelieve its premise and find it unconfortable - you should evaluate the validity of the logical sequence independently.

Ergo:
1.) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2.) The universe had a beginning.
3.) Therefore, the universe has cause.

1.) May be false. You must agree IF something has ever began without a cause, it is surely false. Has the universe itself actually begun without a cause? You don't know, neither do I. You believe one way, and I another. You can offer evidence for determinism, and I for randomness. Others can judge and choose. Does such a democracy or authority prove anything? Nope. Whatever semantics you can play and logical or mathematical operations you apply to words and numbers does nothing to determine the truth or falsehood of this premise. What does that prove? Unlike you, I do not believe it proves one of us to be a moron.
2.) May be false. The universe may be eternal. Which would make both of us wrong, but again, neither of us morons.

If you have an argument that shows it is possible for there to be an accidental cause of the universe, then I'd love to see it, but simply asserting that there is doesn't constitute as an argument.

I've said before that it is always possible to misinterpret evidence, so it we can never be 100% certain that what we have interpreted to be true is actually true, but that does not mean that we can't have a very high degree of certainty that it is true. When we have interpreted evidence to be strong enough that it gives us a high enough degree of certainty to justify our belief that what it indicates is true, then the evidence has proved to us that is is true. Thus from our experience with causal relationships, we can have a very high degree of certainty that everything that beings to exist has a cause and from scientific data we can have a very high degree of certainty that he universe has a beginning.

This is different from logical and mathematical proofs, which aren't interpreted to be true, but are necessarily true. If the form of the arguments is valid, then the truth of the premises guarantees that the conclusion is true. It is impossible for those two premises to be true and the conclusion that the universe had a cause to be false.

"Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists." So if you're observing causes or using a scientific argument, then it's not an ontological argument even if the argument relates to ontology. The most famous ontological argument is Anslem's, but there are a number of them.

Anslem's:
1.) Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived..
2.) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.) A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5.) We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6.) Therefore, God exists.

Mulla Sadra's:
1.) There is existence
2.) Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
3.) God is perfection and perfection in existence
4.) Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
5.) That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
6.) That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
7.) Hence God exists.

Kurt Gödel's:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified

Alvin Plantinga's:
1.) A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2.) A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3.) It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4.) Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5.) Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6.) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

I haven't read much about these ontological arguments, so I'm not trying to argue for any of them, but I listed them so they can see how their type differs from other arguments.

It is important to note that there is nothing in science that shows that something can come from non-existence. Scientists have mislabeled things like quantum vacuums as nothing, but they are something that exists, so they are something rather than nothing. Philosophers hold that there isn't anything at all that can come from non-existence, so when scientists say that something can come from nothing, it does not contradict the philosophical principle because all they are doing is equivocating on what "nothing" means.

If something could come into existence uncaused, then it would be inexplicable why anything and everything can't or does't come into existence uncaused. So when you're talking about a model of physics where inherent randomness is present, you're not talking about true randomness. Rather, there are atoms in an existent framework that display certain types of behaviors that we can't currently predict. This does not in any way affect our practical understanding of the logic or causality, so your model does not test very well in explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, ad hocness, or illumination. Furthermore, it does not explain how it is possible for existence to come from non-existence.

Indeed, I have looked at a number of criticisms of Aquinas, but generally they misunderstand his arguments, so I do not think they have any merit. I never said all objections to Aquinas are illogical, just the illogical ones are.

Suggesting that something is possible is not the same as showing it to be logically coherent. Aquinas argues that God is a logically necessary being even if the universe is eternal. I see no reason to accept that any of those four options are on equal epistemological footing or your definition that they are outside of our domain of knowledge.

I've given good reasons to accept both premises a number of times, so I'm baffled why you think I have refused to offer proofs. The premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause matches the experience of everyone on the planet and it is impossible for something to come from nothing. I've also given both scientific and philosophical reasons for why the universe has a beginning. I've don't recall calling anyone here a moron. I have no doubt that at least one of the things that I think is true is actually false, so I try to to be as objective as I can when evaluating evidence, but so far, you''re the one who has refused to provided evidence for an accidental cause. Just suggesting that something is possible, doesn't make it valid.

In order to challenge a premise, you need to show that its negation is more plausibly true. It's not enough to simply suggest that a premise may be false because that's something that can be said about any premise. I have knowledge that if the universe began, then it had a cause, that's why I use it for a premise. If you have evidence that the universe was caused by randomness, then I would be delighted if you'd share it with me. Again, I never called you a moron.

In my opinion science is not really disproving God but not leaving much room for any godly intervention. Sure, you could say that God made the physical laws, or maybe even he just set up the stage and gave it the first impulse. Maybe God is even ready to intervene and change the physical laws am some point. But so far it all seems to run automatically. If there is a physical law there is no more space for any willfull intervention. It just all runs according to some equations... People who believe probably do not feel very comfortable with such a view.

In this way God is moving more and more far away from us. People who believe probably would prefer to have a God that is much closer to them, really caring not just providing basic physical laws.

God is not directly affecting our lifes when he is just setting up the stage. We don't really need to define the creator of the physical laws God. It would be more like an artificial definition - everything that is unknown is God. Any other name for it or no name at all would be equally good, I guess. That's why science doesn't need a God or is basically only concerned with all things not related to God. And while science grows, God kind of shrinks in the direct impact department, unless you start history with a distant God anyway. Then history would be full of superstition.

So my preferred view is the agnostic one: It doesn't really matter much, if there is some kind of a God, because if there was, he hasn't been close to us so far. Currently it's more a matter of definition.

And it's not so bad. Even if it doesn't matter much, people who believe in a loving, caring God can still do it, it may be advantageous to believe in something that probably isn't really there. If it helps to cope with what is actually there.

Atheism is just the newest fad religion, like Scientology, Branch Davidian, etc. Basing it on "science" doesn't take away the faith in spite of a lack of evidence, combative doctrine, us against them mentality, etc.

Atheism will be a cute footnote by 2100.

Continuation from yesterday:

Thing is, many people would call me crazy. That is why I don't go public with my experiences. People who know me personally on the other hand could confirm some of the stories I could tell - that's how I know I'm not crazy ;-)

If you really want to know, you can PM me. But my guess is you won't believe me.

Oh dear, where to start.

First of all, all these religions are inherently misogynist. While I'm not a woman I can't accept treating half of mankind as inferior beings. The god is male (always He). The savior is male with an all male fanclub. The first human was a man. Priests are men. Most saints are men. Women brought sin and are subordinate to men.
You know that the early church tried to erase or at least "shrink" Mother Mary? They had to leave her in because people wouldn't accept a religion without a female mother goddess. Why do you think people in mass visions often see Mary and not Jesus?

Next - they are all essentially apocalyptic death cults. Instead of encouraging people to improve THIS life for everyone they are focused on subordination, obedience and enduring "what God laid out for you" and waiting for a reward after death. Everything is centered around death, either personally or the end of the world. Christianity even perverted the powerful cross symbol, that as phallus represents the male half of life to solely an instrument of torture and death.
Islam and Judaism at have life symbols: Moon (female) and star (male) for Islam. Downward triangle (female) intertwined with upward triangle (male) for Judaism. At least in their symbols they hold onto duality: 1 + 1 = 3 and means life and procreation.

The Old Testament's god is a murderous, cruel and power hungry deity that would not even stop at human sacrifice, rape to death and genocide. The flood or Sodom and Gomorrha: Kill them all, let God sort them out - oops, that's me?
I know that a small tribe that is surrounded by powerful folk probably needs a pretty badass god. Also that is what happens when you collect all the stories of different gods (mellow or malevolent) and search/replace all the names with your own one god.
I also know that the christians often claim kind of new deal with Jesus. But Jesus did not once claim that things would be better with him. On the contrary he stated that the old rules still apply. Just re-read about the second coming - no trace of generosity, tolerance, well-meaning. It's obey or be punished.

Furthermore: These religions are somatophobic. That is to be expected in death cults that rewards only the soul and sees the body as a mere vehicle. The greek, roman, norse gods at least had a lot of casual sex.

Waitaminute....that's your problem? Semantics?
[facepalm]
Ok - I'll explain my definition of omnipotent for this purpose: All-powerful.
Doesn't mean He must be able to end his existence or make square circles.
Just means He must be powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it, imbue everlasting souls into His people and watch over them. As to where His limits, if any, lie beyond that - you'd have to ask Him.

Agreed - I was just trying to illustrate the pointlessness of arguing it. You *could* try to come up with a solution, but it'd be pointless. (God could manifest Himself in a weak human form without sufficient musculature to lift the rock - it doesn't actually make Him incapable of lifting it though).

I understand your point - I just disagree that He's distant and uninvolved. We don't just define Him as the creator of the physical laws etc - that's something He did, not 'who He is' so to speak.
I know there's no way to convince anyone else that God is in my life, but that's been my experience.
I appreciate science as a way to understand the workings of our world/universe that can bring benefits to mankind. I agree with you that it doesn't pertain to the question of God and whether He exists or takes a hand in things.

Well, I'd suggest that using 'He' is just a product of the society - it's illogical to distinguish gender when referring to a being who doesn't reproduce sexually. Even in today's laws (like an Act of Parliament in Britain) the use of the term 'he' is used to apply to females as well (that way they don't have to write 'he or she' every time or use the (legally) confusing term 'they'.
Since using 'It' is considered disrespectful to refer to a person, we're left with 'He' as the pronoun. (at least that's how I've always seen it) I don't think the Jews would have accepted a woman in that position. Even though there were female prophets (showing God isn't shunning women), it's down to the people of the time and whom they'd listen to. So the part about "Do to others what you would have them do to you" and "Love your neighbour" isn't about making this world better?
Or the part about "If you all live together in peace under God's laws, then the apocalypse will be averted" ?

I agree that there's a focus on 'get it right before you die' - but then, death's inevitable and you never know when it's coming.

I respect any such experiences (unless they lead to religious fanatism) and I think that personal experiences are always some of the highest valued things one can have. I never had such an experience (growing up in a non-religious environment) and I would be suspicious if I had because the senses can be tricked. I guess that makes it so hard to convince others. Maybe if there would be a way to truly share feelings/experiences.

You left out the part of Adam and Eve. Didn't have an answer for that?
Also just take a look at the result in 2000 years of christianity. In all the christian molded western countries women earn less than men in average (on the same position) and don't have the same chance on a leading position.
Take a look at muslims and orthodox jews how they treat women.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
The fruit of the Abrahamic religions for the most part was suppression, violence and the destruction of cultures.

Come on. First of all "The Golden Rule" maybe claimed by the christians, but it is a basic premise for a working society. And there were a lot of civilizations and societies without the Bible's god that lasted timespans that are pretty incomprensible for us modern westerners. It is just reasonable without the need for any god to claim to have invented it.

Also, you are cherry picking. What about the parts of killing your unruly children?

I would never say the Bible isn't without wisdom. But it's also full of atrocities. And the wisdom there is is human wisdom that got labeled "made by god" to give it more auhority. Just like the threats "I'll kill you in horrible ways if you don't obey".