Are You athiest or Agnostic?? Can you Prove there is not??

I have been reading biographies on some of the scientists of our past. I find them compelling and occassionally some of the scientists have a history of their religious preference.

What I found interesting is Max Planck was a devoted Christian.

The following taken out of wikipedia states his opinion on the matter:

The God in which Planck believed was an almighty, all-knowing, benevolent but unintelligible God that permeated everything, manifest by symbols, including physical laws.

Now the word that troubled me is unintelligible.

Is this referring that we as humans cannot attain the intelligence of God, therefore, we will never understand the concept of it.

or does it mean

he is contradicting himself by saying that God is almighty and all knowing, but at the same time unintelligent?


In the end, I would imagine he was a devouted Christian for all of his life that believed truly in what the bible teaches. He certainly had a different view then Einstein. Einstein I would like to believe he took more of a pantheistic route that made him most happy.


In the end these two fellow citizens of my country surely started some much debated talks on quantum mechanics and relativity.

I don't know about all that..but these threads sure have a way of getting people all worked up don't they?

Religion is a sensitive topic for many people, especially for those who take it to heart and practice it each and everyday. I hope in the end whatever faith one takes they will seek a way to promote peace, love, and happiness.

Since we are talking about God in a science and philosophy thread, I would like to introduce Immanuel Kant a German philosopher. He mentions the following that can bring some thoughts to consider:

Kant asserted that, because of the limitations of argumentation in the absence of irrefutable evidence, no one could really know whether there is a God and an afterlife or not. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not.


He explained:

“ All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually. Moreover, in a collective relational context; namely, to know what ought to be done: if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only.

Please forgive me for replying out of order. I have a reason, but it is a loathsome personal attack, so I won't state it, to appease the Moderation gods. So, to your post, SkyHook, I would like to say: I would prefer the same; but being goaded by...other people whom I see as intellectually and socially inferior (i.e. everyone) brings out the "best" in me. :|

I am mostly kidding.

Anyway, *deep sigh*, onto the debate...

I am terribly sorry to have confused you. But I, having been repeatedly asked to re-explain the same thing over and over again, sometimes vary my wording (yes, it is possible to say the same thing two different ways! Must we go into the def. of a contradiction again, or do you have that straight finally?) to keep myself from being driven to sobs of intellectual ennui.

God did not NEED to prove HIS OWN WORTH to anyone; He CHOSE to allow these events to take place FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Please do not ask me about this again. If you do, please reference the thousands--well, it must be millions, by now--of times I've explained this before. Hey, you even have a variety of styles and moods and wording to choose from! O_O

Well, you see, in dealing with pseudo-intellectuals and generally young-soul-crushing individuals (not necessarily you!) over the course of my life--I have become overtly cruel and angry in my expression. Perhaps you've noticed.

That is to say, the way I explain things to people, such as yourself, is sadistic.

Lo siento (un poco).

Nonetheless...

Of course, you would realize all these things for yourself if you weren't so cynical (intellectually, I mean) about the stories and studied them in depth, as I and many have, having been raised under the teaching and studied it formally and at length in college. It's not that the stories cannot be understood by all; they can, if you put the effort into it. If all you do is a cursory, cynical glance, you will gain approximately nothing from it; even a long, cynical glance is fruitless. Careful, thoughtful study will bring and has brought many to the same conclusions.

Are there still disagreements over meaning of certain things? Of course; but is that a flaw in the text itself? Nope. People are flawed. God allowed only what He wanted to be recorded; and it is all we need for now.

Will you read any of that? Probably not; because duplicity can be an art, apparently!

Nope. Grand exaggerations are fun, aren't they?

Two different religions: Judaism versus Christianity. Jews do not believe Christ was their Messiah; CHRISTians do.

Nope; they actually have the Qu'ran. Remember?

Yes, that's because The Catholic Church actually values other texts in addition to the Bible; quite a wrong thing indeed; reminiscent of the Pharisees, frankly, in the promoting of extra-Biblical, man-made writings. I would say, with the Protestant church, it is a very good kind of dissension. Did it bring difficulty? Of course. Such is life, at the moment.

You have to admit that where humans exist, dissension exists; conflict exists. Look at us now, chummy. That does not say anything about the value of God's Word; it says something about the nature of humanity. Where ambiguity exists (ah, something present in all worldviews) in one verse, for instance, clarity comes from looking at the overall context of the book; and, if still necessary, at the whole of Scripture.

God judges; Man obeys according to His judgment.

Hmmm, a beautifully arbitrary statement! What "dirty work"? What are you even talking about?

If anything, Scripture proves that man (and, indeed, the men God inspired to write) is crappy in every single respect, apart from God! Certainly not a "self-beneficial" thing. And in the NT, Christians were martyred for their beliefs; gee wiz, they sure had a great "gig" there, didn't they?

Please show me the passage where God told people to stone sinners to death; it must be in The Book of Stuff You Made Up: Chapter Invisible.

Uh oh, SkyHook, what's this? Where were you on this one?

I assume you meant "noT me," based on context, but illiteracy is a quite an epidemic in this world of ours.

Again, God judges; never instructed man to judge. God, being God, decides what is just and right to do. I'm sorry that's difficult for you to believe. I'd rather have that than the endless, meaninglessly relativistic "morality" brought to you by society's main sponsor, Post-Modernism.

Got news for you, champ; the world did not need "false mythology" as an excuse to turn against each other; that comes naturally, as you should very well know.

THANK YOU. Thank you for saying something vaguely positive for the first time. I made it bold to positively reinforce this behavior.

They nailed Jesus to the cross for claiming to be Yahweh; even though He is. Hence, the problem.

Hate to break this to you: Life is often ugly and violent. A fairy tale would blot all that out with sunshine and magical flowers or something. It would be an overt lie to remove all the violence. However, reading the actual text would help in realizing that it, much like life actually, is not all that; it is often beautiful and joyful. Read some of the Psalms sometime; Hebrew poetry at its best, and much of it very positive and uplifting, and, indeed, divine!

Thank you for your response, be it evasive and, as a matter of fact, equally as derisive as mine.

No, the thing is, "good intentions" cannot make a person "good" in God's sight; "good intentions" cannot save. Man's standards are very low indeed in comparison to God's.

God is loving, but He is also just; He cannot tolerate sin. Through no amount of effort can man remove sin from himself. In short, man cannot fix himself.

Nonetheless, God provided means for man to "be made just" in His sight: Faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry, I though you actually new about the religion. I didn't realize that I was speaking to someone who doesn't even know what the doctrine says.

Why do you think people were stoning sinners to death in Jesus' day?

Do you think that was their own idea?

Clearly you don't even know anything about the religion that you claim to worship.

I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point other than this is a pretty common thing I guess. If people actually understood the religion they'd probably realize the same things that I have come to realize about it.



You do realize that Jesus himself was a Jew? Christianity is just an offshoot of Judaism.



Yes, and do have any clue how the Quran came into being?



So you're one of those people who believe that only your little protesting denomination has all the right answers, and everyone else has it all wrong?

Please pray-tell, how did that happen? Were you just lucky to have accidently bumped into the correct version of Christianity, or was it your intense study of all the different religions of the world that led you to chose one particular denomination of Protestantism?



I'm talking about Yahweh commanding people to stone sinners to death. I never dreamed that you were unware of this. I thought you were a Christian?

Here you are attempting to defend the Biblical God and you have no clue what's even in the book.

Personally I think you should study up on your religion before you attempt to debate it.

Just my thoughts for whatever they're worth.

I suppose I should lower my expectations. And take some Midol. That might help mitigate my emotional outbursts!

It seems fairly obvious why someone would take offense to calling a deepest belief absurd and contradictory (the former is an obvious conclusion coming from you, you being an unbeliever; the latter is simply untrue, no matter how many times you restate the word; denial can be an ugly thing.).

As for your other, other tangent about Yahweh and Jesus Christ: The New Testament fulfills the Old; Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Yahweh. Believers were under Law; now, complete, under grace. Man's approach to God, however, has always been the same: By faith. Read the Book of Romans sometime; it talks in depth about the relationship between the Old and New Testament, the Law and Jesus Christ. Or, for another angle, read the book of Isaiah, which specifically prophesies about Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Your perspective might change slightly.

That would just be yet another contradiction.

If man is incapable of removing sin from himself then clearly he can't be responsible for it.

Whoever wrote that book was clearly trying to make the masses feel like there is no way to out from under the threat of damnation.

Either come to church or be damned!

Because don't forget, those same authors made it a sin to not worship God on the Sabbath! That was just another reason to stone someone to death. In fact, that was actually given as a reason to stone someone to death specifically.

I do not have the entire Bible memorized and you were being completely vague. It makes me question how much, if any, of the Bible you've actually read.

But since you'll likely never explain which verses--or books or testaments, for that matter--you're talking about, the stoning, like sacrifice, represented and demonstrated obedience under the Law. It doesn't seem extremely complicated. Or else explain what on earth your point was in bringing that up at all.

Well, Jesus was sort of a special case, wasn't He? Being the prophesied Messiah, and all. Nonetheless, Christianity is the completion of Judaism; but they are not the same.

The "Prophet" Muhammad. Oops! Looks like you, entrenched in your soliloquy, made a mistake.

The Catholic Church ritualized Christianity; exactly the sort of thing Jesus Christ Himself vehemently opposed. They created a system that is no longer solely Bible-based, but all about "doing" for show and to make themselves "holy." It has become frighteningly political, uncannily like the system the Pharisees had devised, as seen in the New Testament (the Gospels, particularly).

Just speaking in general, though; there are always exceptions, of course.

But, since you're falling in love with me and are prying for details about my life, I'll tell you I'm non-denominational. Meaning, I believe in Scripture itself and alone.

Well, let's start with this: Are you talking about the Old Testament or the New? It makes a difference, and there was indeed stoning in both! So, when confronted with the almost elaborately ambiguous circuitousness of your...thoughts, it is difficult to determine what exactly you're referencing, if anything in reality at all.

Man is responsible for introducing sin, death, into existence initially. Therefore, he is responsible for the consequences; for what he chooses to do about it: Seek God's mercy and forgiveness or not. The "not" would be a grim choice indeed.

What would be the profit in that? Those same laws would apply to everyone, including the authors (whom I believe God inspired).

God allowed (and allows) man a choice--to obey or not--a choice, instead of being programmed or destroyed. Not only a choice, but the ability to be involved in their own sanctification; though that is a painful process, it is a significant one.

If you're going to claim that Jesus was the son of Yahweh then the New Testament is meaningless without the Old.

If you can't justify Yahweh, then you're dead in the water for trying to claim that Jesus was his son.

If Yahweh isn't divine the whole story fall apart.

And clearly Yahweh wasn't divine.

So END OF STORY.

Why even bother bringing up Jesus if Yahweh has already been shown to be a diabolical idiot?

Jesus can't fix Yahweh.

Well, we know that's a lie right there.

This is just another instance where the men who wrote the Bible were caught in a lie.

Mankind could not possibly have been responsible for introducting sin, and death, into existence initially as the Bible claims.

We now know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life existed long before mankind ever came onto the scene. The dinosaurs lived and died, and even ate each other. Tons of animals and plants lived and died and ate each other. LONG BEFORE mankind ever came onto the scene.

Clearly mankind could not be responsible for bringing sin and death into the world.

So the men who wrote those lies are caught red-handed in their lies.

So the whole biblical story starts off with a big fat lie. In fact it's entirely BUILT UPON that very LIE!

There's no hope for the story. It's clearly as false as false can be.

Well, exactly. That was exactly--almost verbatim--what I said. Thanks for your attentiveness!

Of course, the two are inextricable; they always go hand-in-hand.


"Diabolical idiot"? No.

You refuse to recognize the importance of justice.
You refuse to recognize the prolific, undeserved blessings God gave to mankind throughout the Old Testament.
You refuse to recognize man as being responsible for what he does; for when he does evil.
You refuse to recognize God as God. You hate Him and everything He represents due to a profound misunderstanding of His character--reality supplanted by angry, defiant dismissal.

So, I can have nothing further to say to you about that tangent until you address those things.

The problem with your logic is that Yahweh is not a dia--what you claim Him to be. You gave examples; I explained as clearly and repeatedly as one could without hand puppets; and you refused to even hear, let alone acknowledge, any other explanation but your own clouded, bias-ridden conclusions. I have nothing else to say about that; you do not listen to, care about, or seem to understand anything anyone else has to say. It almost makes me sad.

Yeah, well, we'll never agree on that, it seems. We seem to disagree on the age of the earth, the order of events, and how living things came into existence. Problem? Yes.

And, actually, if you were going to correct me, you could have mentioned how I missed the detail about Satan: How he was the first being to defy God. Then, man introduced sin--death--into the world and into mankind by His own defiance against God. But, since you don't believe the Bible is true, our little (for me, masochistic) "convo" seems to be at an end. *Happy sigh*

WHAT??? YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY. There is no need to prove anything UNTIL you define the term "GOD."

What my beliefs are is irrelevant.

If you define that God as a supreme (humanoid) being of the male gender who created the world, then it is up to YOU to prove that if you declare this to be true and if you expect anyone to believe it. It is not up to me or anyone to prove something does NOT exist.

It seems nonsensical to demand Theists prove God's existence in empirical terms; it would seem just as nonsensical to ask Naturalists to explain Evolution in spiritual terms. It just doesn't make sense.

Okay?

I can explain evolution is spiritual terms, but it would take a while. Anyway, who is talking about evolution? This is not about "evolution." Why do some people always think the only choices are God or evolution?

My point is that some people INSIST that God is a humanoid supreme being and that is where they drop the ball. They just expect you to believe it. They offer no proof at all and they have no answers to practical logical questions that I have presented about this being.

Where does he live? How did he create the world? What does he look like? If he is a man, does he have male organs? If he does, what does he do with them? Does he eat food? Does he go to the bathroom? Does he have a wife or Mate or does he just like virgins?

Don't tell me that God is a male supreme being who looks like a human if you can't think of him in that respect and answer a few questions. (and saying "I don't know" does not cut it.) Of course you "don't know"...but have you ever even thought about these things? If not, why not? Why don't people ask questions? Aren't you curious? Or are you just too terrified to question the awesome authority that spins these stories?

People are always saying "God said this and God said that, and God demands this or that..." How the hell do they know? And who do they think they are kidding?

Well, some of those questions are answerable, some unanswerable, and some are fairly trivial/nonsensical (what kind of questions is, does he go to the bathroom? Honestly. And really, why do you care? I certainly don't). We do not know the details of what God the Father looks like; I think it would be fair to say that a description of Him defies words. People fainted--felt like they were going to die--in the presence of angels, who had been in God's presence. So, that says something.

We were, however, made in God's image. So, if you want to get a vague idea of what He looks like or how He is (intelligent, creative, emotional, etc.--but all only watered-down, tainted allusions to His characteristics in us, of course) you need only look in a mirror (well, if you were male--as far as physicality, that is! Man was made in God's image; woman created from man. You know).

Aren't you the one who was saying that God Himself defies (or should defy) description? Even so, isn't that an irrational, sick request? I really think is. While you're at it, ask for a sensory description of love or the feeling one has when looking at their newborn child or what have you. Just sayin'.