Originally posted by danielnovacovici
One though about the attributes of god: is all-powerful and all-knowing. This is logically impossible. If he knows at a instant how the future will be, than he can do nothing to change that because the future will be other that he knew, so god is not all-powerful. This is just one of many things that makes ridiculous the existence of a god (at leas ...[text shortened]... define a god by the supernatural or infinite attributes leads always to logical contradictions.

only because you confined him. you said he knew the future? what if he knows all the futures? what if he lives outside of time? what if time is not a line but a tree infinitely branching in each moment? what if some attributes christian gave him are not true? what if he has some characteristics that he didn't tell the stone age people? what if a lot of things?


there are many possibilities. you haven't discovered the "proof" that god doesn't exist. you took an all-powerfull all-knowing being but confined him in a linear timeline.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I merely want to understand what your reasoning is when you declare that the age of the earth is a matter of faith because a person cannot go back in time. I want to understand what you mean when you say 'see', what you mean when you say 'observe' etc.
It is my belief that all observations are necessarily of past events (due to the speed limit of light) ...[text shortened]... wn eyes at some unspecified future date somehow makes your current knowledge more valid.

It is data, it is results, I can check the data/results now and confirm some
very basic things. We predict events due to data; we can see the fruit of
those predictions by actually witnessing whether or not our predictions
came true, when that isn't possible that is something different.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is data, it is results, I can check the data/results now and confirm some
very basic things. We predict events due to data; we can see the fruit of
those predictions by actually witnessing whether or not our predictions
came true, when that isn't possible that is something different.
Kelly

And when is that not possible? Surely the older something is, the more predictions can be made and verified regarding it? Or are you saying predictions can only be made if the prediction is of future events? If so, why? Why would a prediction about a future event that is verified (in the future) be more reliable than a prediction about a past event that is verified?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what if he lives outside of time?

there are many possibilities. you haven't discovered the "proof" that god doesn't exist. you took an all-powerfull all-knowing being but confined him in a linear timeline.[/b]

Strangely how gods are hiding in all that places where in a particular moment of history, humans cannot look to find him. In the ancient times he hide at the top of the mountains, deep under the ground or water. After that he move in the sky, beyond clouds, maybe beyond stars. Now, maybe, he "lives outside time"...hmmm...pretty pretty shy. It seems that the atribute which is comon to all gods is INFINITE SHYNESS.
Ofcourse I didn't discovered the proof that god doesn't exist. It is imposible to prove that something doesn't exist. I only look to a being described by some atributes and I think that the possibility for that being to exists is pretty pretty small.

Originally posted by danielnovacovici
Strangely how gods are hiding in all that places where in a particular moment of history, humans cannot look to find him. In the ancient times he hide at the top of the mountains, deep under the ground or water. After that he move in the sky, beyond clouds, maybe beyond stars. Now, maybe, he "lives outside time"...hmmm...pretty pretty shy. It seems ...[text shortened]... atributes and I think that the possibility for that being to exists is pretty pretty small.

Nice idea, the shyness of gods !

By the way what you say reminds me of what Bertrand Russell said about the impossibility of proving there is no god :

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods." (source : wikipedia!)

So maybe you're right, the line between agnostic and atheist can be pretty thin.

Yes, it is as difficult to prove that there is no God as it is to prove that there is no teapot revolving around the sun.
( wikipedia again : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot )

Originally posted by twhitehead
And when is that not possible? Surely the older something is, the more predictions can be made and verified regarding it? Or are you saying predictions can only be made if the prediction is of future events? If so, why? Why would a prediction about a future event that is verified (in the future) be more reliable than a prediction about a past event that is verified?

Depending on what your talking about predictions can revolve around a
lot of things. Dealing with how something will behave in time is a prediction,
but as you point out it isn't the only type. Still when we are predicting what
we think we will see or how things will behave the closer to our current
time we are refering to the more likely we will be able to see if we were
correct or not, the proof is in the pudding type of thing. If our predictions
are about say a few billion or years forward or backward in time it is just
what you want to believe in, it isn't like anyone will be able to show you
how wrong you are by showing you what was or will be.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Still when we are predicting what we think we will see or how things will behave the closer to our current
time we are refering to the more likely we will be able to see if we were correct or not, the proof is in the pudding type of thing.

Can you give me an example so that I can understand what you are saying? You keep repeating this claim, but I can never seem to grasp what your actual argument is.
Let me try an example:
I believe person A was killed by person B in 1910.
I believe person C was killed by person D in Ad 1000
Suppose I have 300 witness accounts for the murder of person C and only one witness for the murder of person A. Does the date still outweigh the number of witnesses when it comes to the likelihood of my being able to 'predict' anything about either event? If so, why?
I cant visit either time.

If our predictions are about say a few billion or years forward or backward in time it is just
what you want to believe in, it isn't like anyone will be able to show you how wrong you are by showing you what was or will be.
Kelly
Why not? We are not interested in what will be, because we are talking of past events, so that is irrelevant. But I see no reason why anyone would be prevented from showing me what was. Sure, I cant travel back in time, but that applies to all past events so it should apply equally to events of yesterday as it should to events a billion years ago, yet you suggest a linear progression of uncertainty.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Depending on what your talking about predictions can revolve around a
lot of things. Dealing with how something will behave in time is a prediction,
but as you point out it isn't the only type. Still when we are predicting what
we think we will see or how things will behave the closer to our current
time we are refering to the more likely we will be abl ...[text shortened]... anyone will be able to show you
how wrong you are by showing you what was or will be.
Kelly

This is one of your weakest arguements yet.
what about an all powerful christian god? Wont He be able to show me "what was or will be."?

Originally posted by shorbock
Nice idea, the shyness of gods !

By the way what you say reminds me of what Bertrand Russell said about the impossibility of proving there is no god :

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which on ...[text shortened]... olving around the sun.
( wikipedia again : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot )

except with the teapot, it can be proven. you just simply have to map every cubic meter around the sun. it is a finite task and you have a well defined object.


yes it is impossible to prove god. hence the faith thing. you believe in him or you don't. why do you need to prove him?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
This is one of your weakest arguements yet.
what about an all powerful christian god? Wont He be able to show me "what was or will be."?

You are mixing conversations, with respect to God yes he can predict,
and show you; however, that does not mean you'll have eyes to see.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are mixing conversations, with respect to God yes he can predict,
and show you; however, that does not mean you'll have eyes to see.
Kelly

So its because I do not have "eyes to see" that I cant see Gods prediction?
2 questions:
1. How do I aquire these "eyes to see"?
2. Does anyone on earth at this time have "eyes to see"? Because if they did then we could go ask them what was going to happen,right?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So its because I do not have "eyes to see" that I cant see Gods prediction?
2 questions:
1. How do I aquire these "eyes to see"?
2. Does anyone on earth at this time have "eyes to see"? Because if they did then we could go ask them what was going to happen,right?

You need to go to God for that, because without him you are limited to your
fallen nature and all that binds you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You need to go to God for that, because without him you are limited to your
fallen nature and all that binds you.
Kelly

Ya sure. I'm told this by many, helped to get there by very few😕

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ya sure. I'm told this by many, helped to get there by very few😕

Biggest secret about God and man, the fewer things you have between you
and God the better you off you are. You are better off telling God the truth
when the truth is you don't believe in Him or whatever! Only God can
prove God to you, I cannot, only God can make Himself real to you, I
cannot. If someone attempts to be the go between, between you and God
who than are you really talking to, God or your go between? Jesus Christ
took away the barrier between God and man there is no need to build
another barrier.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Biggest secret about God and man, the fewer things you have between you
and God the better you off you are. You are better off telling God the truth
when the truth is you don't believe in Him or whatever! Only God can
prove God to you, I cannot, only God can make Himself real to you, I
cannot. If someone attempts to be the go between, between you and Go ...[text shortened]... t
took away the barrier between God and man there is no need to build
another barrier.
Kelly

You are better off telling God the truth
when the truth is you don't believe in Him or whatever! Only God can
prove God to you, I cannot, only God can make Himself real to you, I
cannot.

But if I do not believe that God exists in the first place, how would it make sense for me to presume to tell God stuff? This reminds me of a past discussion with knightmeister. He tried to tell me that the best way to come into evidence for the existence of God is to sit down, relax, and ask God to reveal his presence to me. I objected on the grounds that this approach seems rather question-begging.