Your "natural universe" is just another "magical universe". Because 1000 men say the same lie, doesn't mean it's true. If I throw up in the air all the components of a PC, it won't land fully assembled and functional, but yet, you believe in that a big magical bang was at the origin of the universe. How about biased thinking? It's OK only when it suits your own agenda, but if another applies the same method to his ideas, then it's wrong. Let me to Because you deny something that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your thinking is kinda "dark ages". Back then, people were burned at the stake for disagreeing with the mainstream "knowledge". Today, the people are "killed" by the media, then ignored, lives ruined. A blind person can tell me the size, mass, volume, chemical composition of the Sun, but that person cannot tell me what light is. Defies the laws of nature? Again, your lack of perspective is...hilarious. If a man stands by a river, he sees only the part of the river that's in front of him, but if the same man is in a plane, he can see the whole river from beginning to end. "Time" is like a river. God is like the man in the plane. God is inside and outside of "time" at the same time, because God is in the PRESENT. Dear sid_16: are you capable to comprehend everything that happens in the city at one precise moment? Nope, or you'd be like Lucy. That's why "time" exist. Arrogance and stupidity goes hand-in-hand: humans use consciously only 10% of their brain, they decoded 3% of the DNA, BUT they have the guts to say they know better. Poor creatures... It's interesting how humans love to apply double standards in everything they do: if a kid says one thing, he's ignored, but when an adult says the same thing, he's applauded. @gorski: don't run, 'cause you might break a leg or something. It will come to you...eventually. It just takes lives to reach it.
Socrate, for your knowledge only and if you want to formulate a valid and logical argument to refute it..go on I'm ready, just don't post those stupid nonsensical quote/s; The "Outside of Time Argument" An obvious criticism of God being outside of time is that this does not seem to grant free will. Predestination, regardless of how God perceives time, still seems to mean a person's actions will be determined. A logical formulation of this criticism might go as follows: 1. God timelessly knows choice "C" that the human would say she "will make". 2. If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C. 3. If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination. 4. If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities) 5. Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will God Cannot Have Free Will General proof A simple version of an argument appealing specifically to God's free will: 1. Yesterday god infallibly believed T. (Supposition of infallible foreknowledge as a subset of omniscience) 2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. (Principle of the Necessity of the Past) 3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. (1, 2) 4. Necessarily, if yesterday god believed T, then T. (Definition of “infallibility”) 5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. (Transfer of Necessity Principle) 6. So it is now-necessary that T. (3, 4, 5) 7. If it is now-necessary that T, then god cannot do otherwise. (Definition of “necessary”) 8. Therefore, god cannot do otherwise. (6, 7) 9. If god cannot do otherwise when god does an act, god does not act freely. (Principle of Alternate Possibilities) 10. Therefore, when god does an act, god will not do it freely. (8, 9) 11. Therefore, an omniscient god cannot have free will. (1, 10) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will Dan Barker his version of the argument is formulated as follows: 1. God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. 2. Personal beings have free will. 3. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final. 4. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance. 5. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. 6. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. 7. Therefore, a personal God does not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will I really like Dan Barker's version best. Problem of Evil; 1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. Argument; 1. God exists. 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists (logical contradiction). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_and_the_problem_of_evil God Must Be Evil. 1. Evil is harmful and destructive. 2. God chooses to be harmful and destructive. 3. God chooses to be evil. Or put another way... 1. It is evil to kill babies. 2. God killed the first born sons of Egypt in a terrorist attack. 3. God is good (logical and moral contradiction) An Omniscient God with no free will who kills babies. 1. God's omniscience dictates he knew he was going to kill babies. 2. If God is omniscient then he must do what he knows he will do. 3. God has no free will. 4. God had no choice but to kill babies. My dark age thought says so and what about your modern age thought?
Dear sid_16: you're confused. A lot. You're quoting some illogical crap based on a "god" written in a book. I talk about a completely different matter. That's why you can't understand what I'm writing here. Whenever you hear the word "god" your mind brings up the individual from a book. Well...for me, that's just a book and that's all. IMHO, that "god" was just an alien and the proof of that is the book of Ezekiel and in Exodus 20:4-5 A jealous god? LOL There's proof all over old testament that the entity described or mentioned is not God, but a mere alien. With severe mental issues, IMHO.
It just hit me, while watching Legion (2010): what if God's plan was very simple: give humanity FREE WILL and that was all. But, this comes with a "perk": humanity will be responsible for its own actions and deal with the consequences (you reap what you sow). But, in ITS love for humanity, GOD put in a "fail-safe": prayer/meditation/devotion. A way to connect to GOD directly. But the "fail-safe" is a tool that must be used due to love, not for personal gratification. Unfortunately, humans don't give a rats ass about the "fail-safe", or those who do, don't know how to use it. So, that's why the "planet is fine, the people are f*cked up".
@R29k: another proof that some priests are idiots. I bet that if you ask that priest about God, he'll say exactly what sid_16 posted above. Go figure...
LOL. The guy's clueless. He speaks of free will without even a clue of what it is and you can see that by his opening statement: without free will Christianity, Judaism and Islam wouldn't make any sense which is the most...clueless affirmation ever. Christianity, Judaism and Islam don't make any sense, period. Free will has nothing to do with religion. Religion was "born" because of free will, just like science, art, war, famine, slavery and so on. FREE WILL implies responsibilities, but some...don't give a damn.
I find it hard to take you seriously when you apparently don't have a clue what you are talking about !
If god knows beforehand what we will do on earth, then why does He send us here? It would be pointless. If god doesn't know what we will do, then He is not omniscient.
It's simple, either God is a dumba** or it doesn't exist ! Don't know why people say he, how can God have gender ?
@katzenfreund: If your child had school work to do, even though you know the work, would you do it for Him/her? To me, that would be pointless. Your kid would never learn.
@R29k: Only if he raped the neighbor's cat...Then, I'd just dip his peepee in it. @Katzenfreund: That's like saying "My kid is a total moron. I know he's going to fail, so I won't even give him a chance to prove me wrong." Sometimes, there's a valuable lesson in the failure.
That’s easy. People use He (not he) and Father, instead of “it”, for historic reasons and out of respect. Similarly, in my website on cats, I refer to them as “he” or “she” and not “it”, to show that cats are not objects and should not be treated as such. I also clarify that, despite my foregoing comment, I am not an atheist. I simply tried to use human logic, within its limitations, in an attempt to answer the OP question. And that’s the conclusion to which my human logic leads. But it is considered that God lies beyond human logic and cannot be understood or analyzed by it. Now, this last statement makes me think again. Because if it’s true, my logic leads me to the conclusion that it is pointless to discuss the subject, since our human logic cannot analyze it.
These "historic" reasons come from the male domination in the church. The father, "he" is the dominant leader ! The bible is androcentric! I also know that it is pointless to contemplate the existence of God. If a God does exists, an omniscient God, then reverence, prayer, begging and what not is pointless. It knows the beginning and end of all, so what purpose does it serve ? If the being is not omniscient then it can't be God, so likewise what's the point in bothering with it ? Hence I am agnostic. This thought process of humans to be servile to supposed authoritarian figures is a flaw in the human race. It exists as a mean of survival but isn't needed any more. In many cases all it does is stifle individuality and creates a dependence on hierarchy. Look at the ails of current society and you will see the flaws of social ordering, politicians being the best example. If people would just learn to think for themselves rather than designating someone else, who in many cases is not qualified, to do so.