Address the point.

EVEN IF we give that a certain mind X has issued the command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time, you have no way to go from that to omnipotence. If you do, show it.

As a simple example: If someone had a large enough speaker, they could tell everyone in the world to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Would that make the speaker owner omnipotent? No. Not at all. — khaled

I have provided a proof that Reason is God. — Bartricks

False. All you've provided on this thread is this:

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is an existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason. — Bartricks

You have provided proof that there is a mind X that told us to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Note, it is false for reasons outlined above, in addition to others outlined by Creativesoul, namely that you have no proof it's a single mind but let's assume it is. Now. Prove this mind is that of God. Let's start with omnipotence. Show that the mind that told you not to believe something to be true and false at the same time is omnipotent.

Say which premise you're challenging and provide a deductively valid argument that has its negation as a conclusion and we'll take it from there.

None of the ones you've provided. But I know you reach the conclusion that the mind issuing imperatives of reason is omnipotent. Now. Show the proof for that conclusion. Continue from premise 5 to show that this mind possesses omnipotence.

Why? You don't know what a proof is. I might as well do a sea shanty and post it up here and offer that as my proof for all the careful rational scrutiny you'll give it.

Challenge a premise in my argument or go away.

So you can't offer a proof. Thanks for letting me know.

Ok so all you have here is a "proof" that some mind X told all of humanity to be reasonable (except you demonstrably). And the proof is flawed in 2 ways. It assumes it's one mind for no reason. And it does not address how such an imperative couldn've been issued without anyone remembering it.

You then go on to use your toilet paper proof and add to it that this mind X is a triple omni God. And yet you cannot show why this is when asked.

Cheers. Time to get that ignore list browser extension.

So you can't offer a proof. Thanks for letting me know. — khaled

Again with the comprehension skills. I can, it's easy. But I don't see the point, given that you'll rewrite everything I say and say "so you think this - that's stupid" and then I'll just have tediously to tell you that's not what I said. Like this.

So if I contrive some silly religion no one can rationally refute it? — praxis

It would depend on whether there could be empirical evidence that might be used to refute it, or whether it was logically contradictory.

God is made of cheese.

This is a logical contradiction since God is understood to be an immaterial being.

What is the lie? Anyone who believes s/he knows God's truth and that those who do not hold the same truth, do not know God, is not allowing others the liberty to determine truth for her or him self. Only when we remain unsure of our understanding of God's truth can we grant others the liberty of determining truth of one's self.

Christianity began with Christians killing Christians because they disagreed with each other and for most of our history they have been killing each other until science and democracy changed that.

An atheist is more apt to trust science, so there is an understanding of why wearing masks and keeping distance and washing hands is important, or understanding what we are doing that is destroying life on the planet. We can be as unwilling to allow others the liberty of believing the wrong thing as a Christian. False beliefs that spread disease and destroy our planet are not something we can tolerate.

Protestants began with the belief that science would reveal God's truth and had they stayed with that belief, the God issue would not be as important as it is today. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe, logos, is about discovering the reason for why things are as they are, or science bringing us to God's truth. All people have attempted to know God's truth because our survival depends on it. They just did not have the scientific method of knowing truth. But when science began exposing the things said in the bible that we should not believe, Protestants turn against science. Protestants depended on a literal interpretation of the Bible and that is disastrous. They wanted to correct Catholicism by interpreting the Bible literally and they backed their way into a corner they can not get out of off.

How we interpret the Bible depends largely on our education. Liberal education prepared everyone to think abstractly and this makes mythology, stories, parables, not literally God's truth. A god did not make a man of mud and a woman from his rib. Christians who interpret the Bible literally have trouble with science, and education for technology dropped education for abstract thinking and we are in a mess now! Interpreting the Bible literally pits people against science and that works against our survival, turning those who rely on science firmly against religious folks. Who is the liar? Science and Satan or the religious community that denies science?

This is a logical contradiction since God is understood to be an immaterial being. — Janus

If God were immaterial we would not now of Gods existence because God would be completely undetectable.

Plato and other ancient philosophers used myths to illustrate certain points they were making and I believe that some religious texts are doing the same. Different people draw different teachings from them according to their own level of maturity and understanding. As long as they don't get any crazy ideas or don't turn to fanaticism, I don't have a problem with that. — Apollodorus

And here is the problem. I think Jews interpret the Bible more abstractly than Christians. It is the literal interpretation of the Bible that gets people into trouble.

I love it when science proves the truth of what is said in the Bible. Yes, climate change killed the frogs and increased the insects as the Biblical story tells us. Yes, a wall fell down. I have a preacher nephew who became outraged when I sent him the scientific proof of the Bible stories. I thought it would please him, but no! Science destroys the superstitious understanding of the events and that made him furious. He and others like him, see that as Satan's work to destroy faith in God.

Believing a lie is not being good.

It is the literal interpretation of the Bible that gets people into trouble. — Athena

Correct. Some passages or concepts may be taken literally, whilst others are to be interpreted allegorically. Jesus himself spoke in parables for this very reason, and he explained how words, symbolized by seeds, have a different effect according to the type of soil (or mind) on which they fall.

The NT characterizes just society as a society ruled by "righteousness, peace, and joy" and the same is found in Platonic and other philosophical texts.

If we start with righteousness which includes right conduct and right thought then misunderstandings and problems are usually avoidable. It is only when reason is suspended and replaced with unreason that problems start.

Religious texts were originally held in the possession of priests who interpreted them for the lay community. Scriptural interpretation was probably later influenced by politics and even the otherwise good bits ended up being distorted. This is why mankind have devised new religious systems every now and then when the old ones no longer served the intended purpose. But political systems can be just as bad or even worse, as can be seen in the case of communism.

If God were immaterial we would not now of Gods existence because God would be completely undetectable. — praxis

If God is taken to be omnipotent, then he would probably find ways of making himself known to mankind.

And the medium is cheese. This is rationally irrefutable.

As for "non-believers", I think they are a kind of people who believe in all sorts of things but deny the right of others to hold their own beliefs. — Apollodorus

What is the lie? Anyone who believes s/he knows God's truth and that those who do not hold the same truth, do not know God, is not allowing others the liberty to determine truth for her or him self. — Athena

The lie was that I do that, when I do not do that. And you might want to reread your sentence for coherence.

To my way of thinking, folks can believe what they like. It's the claim of ordinary existence and reality as a matter of fact that becomes a problem. Facts require evidence, beliefs don't.

If you say so.

God is made of cheese. — praxis

Perfect cheese, though.

I think Jews interpret the Bible more abstractly than Christians. — Athena

Well, they have to though, don't they? Otherwise the God they worship would be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty.

Christians, on the other hand, may more easily be literal in their interpretation of the New Testament, but if they are they show themselves to be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty. The Old Testament God, interpreted literally, is one actual Christians understand quite well.

If God were immaterial we would not now of Gods existence because God would be completely undetectable. — praxis

That's merely an assumption, not a logical truth or an empirically decidable claim.

If God were immaterial we would not now of Gods existence because God would be completely undetectable.
— praxis

That's merely an assumption, not a logical truth or an empirically decidable claim. — Janus

But it would be a non-material existence. I know only of ideas that fit that category. Do you know of anything esle?

No matey, you're just confused. The word 'faith' has several different meanings. Delineate them. — Bartricks

What did I not delineate when I said, and I quote word for word:

I am talking about faith in the strict religious sense — Merkwurdichliebe

???

Perhaps English is not your first language, in that case I can forgive your very apparent selective stupidity.

If God were immaterial we would not know of God's existence because God would be completely undetectable.
— praxis

That's merely an assumption, not a logical truth or an empirically decidable claim. — Janus

It is logical to conclude that nothing (no material existence) is undetectable because nothing can't produce sound waves, reflect light, etc. Also, if it's not an empirically decidable claim then it is irrefutable. :smile:

How we interpret the Bible depends largely on our education. Liberal education prepared everyone to think abstractly and this makes mythology, stories, parables, not literally God's truth. A god did not make a man of mud and a woman from his rib. Christians who interpret the Bible literally have trouble with science, and education for technology dropped education for abstract thinking and we are in a mess now! Interpreting the Bible literally pits people against science and that works against our survival, turning those who rely on science firmly against religious folks. Who is the liar? Science and Satan or the religious community that denies science? — Athena

Nicely put.

Curiously I rarely met any literalist Bible believers in the 1970's; we were always taught that the Bible was an allegory and according to Theologian David Bentley Hart, this was a strong tradition for centuries, with literalists being a comparatively new thing. Sounds counterintuitive. These days literal believers are everywhere. I guess the internet makes them a viable worldwide community and emboldens their thinking. I wonder if people head towards the comfort of fundamentalism's certainty when they fear the world, and with science comes little else but continual change.

well stated. Literal interpretations are as lame as they come. The bible is not a history book, nor is it a math or science book. It is a religious book that should only and always be interpreted religiously. Too bad it is all so convoluted and confused. Yet, we can't blame anyone, religion is as difficult a topic as any, it is more abstract than math, more allegorical than literature, and the suspension of philosophy.

isn't that is why God is an object of faith? Understanding always has a bedrock

Curiously I rarely met any literalist Bible believers in the 1970's; we were always taught that the Bible was an allegory and according to Theologian David Bentley Hart, this was a strong tradition for centuries, with literalists being a comparatively new thing. Sounds counterintuitive. These days literal believers are everywhere. I guess the internet makes them a viable worldwide community and emboldens their thinking. I wonder if people head towards the comfort of fundamentalism's certainty when they fear the world, and with science comes little else but continual change. — Tom Storm

Bingo with literalists being a comparatively new thing. Education for technology is about being exacting and correct and relying on authority. And I believe you are right about the psychological reason for clinging to fundamentalism. This is so in Afghanistan (fundamentalist Muslims) and the US (fundamentalist Christians) or in Israel (Jew).

One source of information I have says in the US we cling to Christianity or Democrats. :lol: I didn't think I would ever say it but I think the Democratic party has swung too far to the left and here comes your statement that about the problem showing up in politics. I think the democrats are creating an unhealthy reliance of government and Tocqueville wrote of that danger in 1830. Has everyone read "Democracy in America" and the despote Tocqueville said all Christian democracies would become?

Communism is taking care of everyone and isn't that a Christian goal? At the moment taking care of everyone also seems to be a Democratic goal. The Prussian model of bureaucracy makes this possible, and education for technology plus overpopulation makes it necessary. Oh dear, I am afraid my reply is not very philosophical because it is very materialistic. Ideals take form, we are the body of Christ or communism, and the form shapes society. Anyway it can be argued Christianity makes people weak and when they become dependent on the beast, that may not be a good thing?

Well, they have to though, don't they? Otherwise the God they worship would be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty.

Christians, on the other hand, may more easily be literal in their interpretation of the New Testament, but if they are they show themselves to be jealous, despotic and bloodthirsty. The Old Testament God, interpreted literally, is one actual Christians understand quite well. — Ciceronianus the White

There is a changing of values of the old testament as the people shift from being nomadic herders, as dependent on God as leaves blowing in the wind, to an agrarian society with private ownership of land and food-producing trees and fields, with increasing wealth that is dependent on individual effort and individual wealth to buy more land (a violation to God!). Later, in some places, this became more cosmopolitan city living.

The God of David is a war God. Now the people are paying taxes and expected to defend their land. These are no longer herders dependent on a God to guide them to water or send birds to feed them.

Religious texts were originally held in the possession of priests who interpreted them for the lay community. Scriptural interpretation was probably later influenced by politics and even the otherwise good bits ended up being distorted. This is why mankind have devised new religious systems every now and then when the old ones no longer served the intended purpose. But political systems can be just as bad or even worse, as can be seen in the case of communism. — Apollodorus

This was not always so. There was no written of God until after the Hebrews/Jews (?) were taken into captivity by Babylon. And obviously, these people did not accept the changes made with the New Testament, and before there could be a New Testament, the power structure of Rome, had to determine which side of the fight about when Jesus became a god or if he did become a god is the right one? As the religion moved north it was changed by barbarians without an ancient city culture and written word.

Today people seem to think the Bible is the written word of God, with absolutely no knowledge of all the changes in consciousness that the religion has gone through. Not until our bellies were full did God become a loving God instead of a fearsome and punishing God. Notions of evil and demons have also changed and I am rather disappointed that no one has addressed my question "What is evil".

It's the claim of ordinary existence and reality as a matter of fact that becomes a problem. Facts require evidence, beliefs don't. — tim wood

Please, support the notion of Satan and demons if you want to claim Christianity is not a lie. That is how you use the word "lie". The word "myth" might be a better word. The Bible is a mythology that should not be taken literally.

This was not always so. There was no written of God until after the Hebrews/Jews (?) were taken into captivity by Babylon. — Athena

What I meant was that the practice of writing down laws said to have been given by God goes back to Hammurabi (1792 - 1750 BC ) and before:

“Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice.”

Hammurabi – Wikipedia

The Judeans were taken into Babylonian captivity in 597 -581 BC, i.e., many centuries after the Code of Hammurabi.

But I agree that the idea of a loving God in the modern sense is a recent reinterpretation. The original idea was that God is to us like a father. He creates us, supports and protects us, feeds us, and expects "love" i.e., obedience in return.

God was like the pater familias in Greek and Roman society hence he was referred to as "Father" (Zeus Pateras) in the same way children out of respect always addressed their parent as "father", not by his proper name.