There is this fellow who said god created a body then killed it and then resurrected it to forgive humans.
If you want to forgive somebody, will you dance(or do any nonsensical act) before forgiving or you simply forgive?
Another person says
Things are complex and every complex thing needs creation.
Then he says god is more complex hence do not need creation(special pleading, but he says that god is more complex that he cannot understand god and hence god need creation, though his premise is all complex things need creation).
My question is simply this,
Why this intelligent people, people who can spot the illogicality of any sentences, cannot spot the ridiculousness or illogicality of their own arguments?
What make people blind to their own logical contradictions, but let them see others'?
The ancient Hebrews were instructed by God to offer blood sacrifices to atone for sin. This worked for the Hebrews for centuries. However to cover the sin of the whole world something more universal was required, a sacrifice to end all sacrifices, something to deal with the problem once and for all. So God steps into the World and offers himself. After the atonement was made God resurrected himself. Simple really.
No I don't understand the other statement either.
May be Hebrews thought that they were instructed by god to make blood sacrifices(Hebrews were not alone in that)
Why an intelligent god need blood to forgive? Do you want your children to throw away their toys for you to forgive them?
Or why do we think the ancient Hebrews knew the truth?
The blood sacrifice emphasises the gravity of the offence. To bring a sacrifice was intended to cost the offender, a fine if you like, and in time bring about a change in behaviour.
I understand your point, but then it is no longer sacrifice. The offender is punished and doing reparation and there is no forgiveness. But that won't explain why god has to create a body to be destroyed and resurrected just to forgive.
God is sacrificing if he give up the raparation (after all that is his creation too) or god simply forgive.
Blood sacrifice including human sacrifice was part of most ancient cultures.
Your version of what I said doesn't properly represent my point. You've instead projected your blind spot on it, so I am reprinting the multiple explanations I gave you before. You have a like minded band of vocal folks with a similar blind spot who can rally you on. I know this is foolishness to you and them, so have fun with it as you wish, but at least I am not being misrepresented.
Your question highlights the faulty premise primary to arguments against a creator, which is that a creator would be subject to the laws or characteristics utilized in creation. Whoever created our existence had to be there first to do it. They would not be subject to the laws they established to govern creation. Neither would they be confined to the characteristics of their creation. All of science is simply observing the amazing things created and striving to understand how they work. Considering the complexity of the simplest aspects of creation that we are aware of, far outpace our grandest achievements, it appears we are just scratching the surface. Expecting then to understand a creator more complex than creation, and not bound by anything we are capable of understanding is a bit unreasonable, as is dismissing his existence because of our lack of comprehension.
Pasted from <http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107030>
Yes, everything within creation is governed by laws, and within that creation, complexity demands a designer. If someone wrote your name in your driveway with apples, you would have no doubt there was intelligence behind it, but the complexity of dna, not so much. Makes no sense.
Whoever put the laws that govern everything in place however, would have to have existed prior to the establishment of those laws or they could not have established them. Why would you expect them to be subject to the laws they had yet to establish, or be defined by the creation they made?
Where did God come from? Of course we can't know that anymore than those who believe in the exploding spot can say where it would have come from.
Pasted from <http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107030>
Truly amazing. I can't be any clearer than my two previous explanations and yet you continue to say my logic dictates God must have a creator when in fact I said just the opposite. You continue to apply the laws governing creation and it's attributes to a creator, and then say that was my point. I have a hard time accepting anyone could miss the point 180 degrees unless they are purposely avoiding acknowledging it but who knows? Maybe you can. Clearly nothing I can do about that.
Pasted from <http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107030>
How you two continually missed the point is confounding. Let me try this one more time. I was simply saying a creator would have to have existed before His creation. If He was before it, He is outside of it. If He is outside of creation He is not subject to the laws He makes to govern it. My comments about complexity of creation requiring a creator logically would not extend beyond creation because we only can know about creation. Speculating on the origin of the creator is pointless since we have no way to see outside of creation, so what sense does it make to speculate that He too requires a creator? I have stated it several times, but didn't want to leave it with your misrepresentation here, so I have repeated it again. What we know of Him is based on what He has told us through the bible. I realize you don't believe any of that, which is fine, but you should be able to grasp the point, as a hypothesis, regarding why a creator would logically not be confined to the laws or attributes seen in His creation.
Pasted from <http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107030?page=2>
It is YOU who said everything needs a creator. Do you accept this premise or not?
If you accept that premise, you will notice that the premise has no "EXCEPT" clause.
1)So everything needs creator.
2)The creator is called god.
3) God is a thing
4) So according to the first premise, as god is a thing, god needs a creator.
[ If god is not a thing, then he is nothing.]
Or the premise is false.
I cannot make it more simpler for you. You say you cannot understand the god or his laws, but I am not asking about god or his laws, I am asking about the very first premise YOU proposed.
I'll give one example,
Premise 1) All white fluid is milk
So is white paint milk?
According to the first premise it is. You cannot say because the chemical structure of paint is different or laws governing paint is different or you cannot know about paint...
Either the premise is true or false. If it is true, all white fluid is milk and white paint is also milk
the premise is false.
Your logic is not a syllogism, it has a logical contradiction - special pleading.
And my question was not whether your logic is valid, but what makes you blind to the obvious logical contradiction.
Right down to it. Here we go. Some believe that complex things need to be created. That, they were taught, so they can't imagine any other way. Using that logic they invented one God to do the creating. They imagined this God to have always been and always will be. If you ask me, they have created more questions that they have no answers for then they solved by inventing God. They can't imagine a would without a God, but can imagine a God that was never born. That question they don't ask?
If I get this right then your problem is specifically with those who say that God must have created the universe/world/everything... whatever...because everything complex has to have a creator?
So If I said God created the universe you wouldn't have a problem with that? There really isn't a logical fallacy in the sentence.
Basically what I'm saying is that you aren't necessarily disagreeing that God created the universe you are just disagreeing that he had to.
If you simply said god created universe that makes a positive assertion, which has to be proved.
What I am interested is not the truth of the premise, but the logical contradiction and the apparent blindness towards that contradiction.
The blindness to that logic comes from the fact that there are paradoxical logics.
On one side there is The Universe wasn't created it has always been.
If you accept this then it is paradoxical to say that God could not have always been. If it is possible for one thing to be eternal then it is possible for other things to be eternal... unless you plead special case.
On the other side there is The Universe was created.
Of this the two theories most relevant to this conversation are:
The Big Bang Created it.
God created it.
Each theory automatically leads to: But what created God or What created the big bang.
Eventually you will reach a point where the answer has it be "It always was"
Which leads us back to the first point.
My general take... as I have stated before... Is "I don't know and I don't care. I don't need to know who built my house to live in it"
You are correct and that is why I'm not interested in the truth of the premise.
I'm only interested in why people who put forward such premises to establish the validity of their argument can easily see the contradictions in the opponents arguments while fail to see the same problem in theirs.
Oh... that's human nature. If given two sets or more sets of equally valid/invalid logics they will always chose the one that most closely aligns with their preconceived notions.
The question: Why do atheists think the universe always existed but ask the question "Who created God?" would have been just as valid. Can't they see the contradictions?
So basically this whole thread really has nothing to do religious vs non-religious... it has to do with "Why can't some people admit that another person might have a point?"
The answer: Because some people are asshats.
That is exactly what I'm interested in, human behavior and thought process.
Well that's easy. Look back over a time in your past when you could not see the logic problems in your own argument because you were clinging to your own held beliefs.
There's your answer or one of them at least.
You didn't need a whole thread to tell you that did you?
The problem is after my primary studies that is for the last 18 years I never held to any particular belief, whenever I get into argument in which I was shown I was wrong or got new facts, I always changed.
But here(not only here) I am finding people tenaciously clinging to the old logic even though the contradiction is clearly shown.
You've never held not one single belief or opinion that was contrary to someone else's? On anything? Ever? You've always responded and changed your beliefs every single time someone countered one of your opinions with logic? Wow.
I said I have changed my opinions when I was shown I am wrong. So I cannot understand how people hold on to that which is clearly wrong. Look at bBerean, he put so many arguments why he is correct in his logical contradiction, I don't understand that.
Being "shown" you are wrong depends on your standard of proof and the value you place on another's arguments. It's subjective...
He obviously doesn't believe he is "clearly" wrong. (btw I have no idea who you are talking about)
His arguments -to him- are obviously not logically contradictory. To you they are. As I don't see a lot of proof coming from either side...
If he is trying to "prove" something to you or vice versa the biggest fail in logic I see is either of you feeling the need to prove anything to the other... or to prove that the other one didn't prove something.
I may have a touch too much chemical enhancement tonight but it just seems to me that it would be easier if you all just threw them out on the table and measured them.
The second or third post, by bBerean.
It has an obvious logical fallacy 'special pleading', which was explained to him by many.
Don't you see I'm not proving but questioning logic (contradiction) which is the set of rules we(humans) proposed for as to communicate effectively and to reach correct conclusions about a situation. The rules are already there, it's only whether one follow it or not.
Ok... to what ends? If you are curious about his thought processes I can be curious about yours. What would him saying..."Yes I was indeed contradictory" get you? How would you benefit?
... oh that post. I didn't read it... too long.
I would say that the fact we consider the idea of sacrifice nonsensical just might prove that the sacrifice served its purpose. If only ancient man had access to all the knowledge we do.
I would also assume that someone who believes in the creation of this universe would have to assume God is only eternal as it pertains to this reality. If we ever come to understand how this reality came into existence we might be prepared to develop theories on what was before. When speaking of a creator I guess any theory has as much chance of being the correct one as the next.
If you're asking why the "dog and pony show" of the resurrection, the answer could be because that's what people want and pay attention to.
Merely saying "You're saved now" somehow doesn't have the same emotional effect as a mental picture of a bloodied, tortured man on a cross (although why caucasion?) that has bled and suffered for that forgiveness. Salvation, like everything else, is probably worth what was paid for it, or at least that's how most people think.
That is interesting.
But how do they turn a deaf ear to logic, rather their own logical contradiction?
Because in what i said about the sacrifice there is no contradiction and there is logic, but .... you don't understand it.
Let me show you directly what the bible says about the sacrifice of God:
Hebrews 9:9 Which was a figure (representation) for the that time in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could NOT make him (the priest) that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances (works), imposed on them (OT) until the time of reformation. (jesus)
Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; (our bodies)
Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of GOATS and COWS, but by his OWN BLOOD he (JESUS) entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of COWS and of GOATS, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieS to the purifying of the flesh:
Hebrews 9:14 HOW MUCH MORE shall the BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through the eternal Spirit OFFERED himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he (JESUS) is the mediator of the new testament, that BY MEANS of DEATH, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9:16 For where a TESTAMENT is, there must also of necessity be the DEATH OF THE TESTATOR.
If you can understand this then you can see i did not make it up.
The whole verse is about it.
Thank you for inquiring.
I guess you have no idea what logic is.
What is written in a book of nonsense and sexual offense and slavery is not logic
I guess you did not
and now you want to bring in other areas of discussion which you also can't fathom.
Fathoming nonsense is the speciality of psychotics.
and denial is the ship of fools. (proverbs) You really wanna play this game? seriously?
I don't think you can stay on topic or debate well...
If you don't wanna use the bible then we really have nothing to talk about.
Hebrews chapter 9 wasted ya
by maestrowhit9 years ago
If you were God, and had the power to forgive or condemn whomever you chose, would you let people go to Hell? Would there be a single person you would not forgive?If your answer is yes, then who would that be? and why?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 years ago
In a forum, I asked a question: Why God created atheists? Now I ask, why man created God?
by LewSethics6 years ago
This god so many people insist is real sounds like a complex thing. Complex things don't just spring out of nowhere or assemble themselves, so it was probably created by a higher form, because nothing complex can...
by Tony Lawrence6 years ago
A theist asked me to start a separate thread for this. I refused at first, but then I thought "why not?"Let's understand first that I am not against religion per se. I believe it can help some people. I do not...
by LewSethics5 years ago
He could have done it in four or five days if He didn't insist on making most heavenly objects thirteen billion light years distant. Just showing off?
by lovetherain2 days ago
if God is a natural part of the universe,and didn't create it, is he still considered god is he is our moral authority?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.