I can hear their first hymn now.

"We gather together to gather together."

Atheist Temple- you go in and do nothing.

Perhaps they should adopt the Seinfeld Show as one of their sacred texts, since that show was about nothing.

At the least they should install the largest and tallest Festivus Pole in the world.

You seen Kan, the 'faithful' will dismiss these excercises in logic as trickery, in the middle ages they would have burned me at the stake for heresy in asking such questions.

Nonsense, the question was asked and addressed in the Middle Ages by the Islamic philosopher Averroes and St. Thomas Aquinas. Neither were persecuted for asking such questions. Instead they were lauded as great thinkers of their faiths--though Averroes felt out of favor with some members of the Islam community at the time.

Beyond that each among others have addressed the question and settled it to their satisfaction by employing logic and reason.

If you wish to enter that debate you should probably read up on a long, long list of philosophers and thinkers.

......no.......the question (one among many) is not settled.......
.......if God can commit suicide, then He is not eternal........
.......if God cannot commit suicide, then He is not all-powerful.....
.........there is no logical reconciliation that allows for an eternal, all powerful God to exist.....

If you are going to posit the existence of an entity that is omnipotent, must not this omnipotence enable this entity to exist despite logical paradoxes that seem to question his existence?

Certainly one of the powers of omnipotence is to supersede logical constraints.

You are not truly accepting that this posited entity has omnipotence. You are saying that logic is more powerful than the entity; hence, you are not truly accepting your own premises on the nature of omnipotence.

The question fails at the outset because you are not actually granting the possibility of the property which you are testing.

Logic and reason are antithetical to religion

Not at all.

Logic and reason are tools that are dependent upon the assumptions one is willing to accept in order to build an epistomology.

One comes out at the end of a syllogism depends upon what one premises one accepts at the beginning.

The arguments of what one is to assume as a premise is the stuff of philosophical debate for the last 2500 years. That you have settled on empiricism (I assume) is your choice, but it is not the only one.

What characteristics do you posit your God as having?

The attributes of the Judeo-Christian deity are well examined, discussed and debated in a variety of sources over the last two thousand years. It is the subject of much theological and philosophical debate by some of the greatest minds the world has known. These can be found on a number of web pages with a simple google search.

.I would agree with that.....that the concept of God is nonsensical.....but if that is your solution to providing support for the existence of God, then it is a self-defeating one.......
........because it proves my point, that the concept of God is nonsense, far more efficiently than it does yours..........

You equivocate and suffer from faulty logic. Nonsensical questions about God do not prove that God is nonsensical.

.......and.......
.......you have still avoiding answering the question........
......can God commit suicide ?........

Do answers to nonsensical questions having any meaning to you or hold any weight in a real argument?

I guess if you want a nonsense answer then, I will give you one:

Yes, but he chooses not to.

Have to go for now. Take care all.

I asked for your views. Are you just a parrot for the thoughts of others?

No, but I am certainly not your teacher, especially for information that can be easily looked up.

Are you looking to be schooled?

The biblical God is shown to be false. The rantings of the last two thousand years are worthless since they are based on a proven falsehood.

I know that you think you have proven this beyond any kind of rational doubt, but the fact is that you haven't. In the past, a long time ago, I tried to explain why this was not so. You would not accept any of my arguments--though they were reasonable. I doubt if there is anything that I can say that will convince you now. That's okay with me. I can live with that. To be honest I don't have the time to reinvent the wheel for you to tell me that it is not really a wheel. No offense.

What attributes does the God you worship have?

If you want a bone, here it is.

God, capital G, author of all creation including the laws that govern it--yet is not constrained by any of it, etc.--you can google the rest . . .

God, lower case g, see the various gods of polytheistic religions.

Now, I really have to go; out to dinner with my wife.

Cheers.

Your imaginary friend still doesn't exist, but your pathetic grasp of logic and critical thought and 19th century philosophical misconceptions are hilarious. It's like watching Eddie. Much more entertaining than Survivor Vanuatu I'm sure.

Actually some of the philosophers I mentioned are far older than 19th century. I do tend to be dismissive of 20th-21st century philosophy. It is mostly post modern in its bent--and as such it believes it deconstructs all kinds of epistomologies--science included. Do you adhere to current post modern theories, Zat, are you mostly into Heidegger, Kuhn, Derrida etc? Or are you still rooted in Kant, the reduction to empiricism and other 18th century philosophies?

Perhaps a better question is has God kissed your ass yet?

No?!

I wonder why a deity who created the universe is not rushing to kiss it. Odd, isn't it?

Thanks for the insight into logic.

Then please link to the link that shows your views.

You can start with Augustine

Books 8-12

Never even wasted my time to hear of them, imbecile, but I have done all the homework problems in Dirac's Quantum Mechanics in ten readings of the delicious book over half a century.
You couldn't get out of freshman physics with your life.

Arrogant ignorance does not become you, nor anyone for that matter.

I tell you, Zat, you are a something. It has been my experience that the more educated people are, the more humble they usually are in terms of what they know and what can be known. Moreover, the more open minded they are, and they are rarely ever dismissive of other fields and avenues of understanding even when they keep to their own.

It makes it hard to believe that you are truly educated.

Perhaps this is what separates the PhDs in your field from those with Masters. Perhaps you should work on your doctorate. I bet you could do it.

The philosophical foundation of christian belief is a tribal "just-so story" with no basis in reality.

All your points are philosophically debatable, and I know you know that. You are not dumb.

It has been a long week, and am just too tired drag out the arguments again. Sorry.

Good night.

True, I agree with you. God could have used anything to make another living being. But it would not be his SON. That is a specific relation defined by humanity in a uniform fashion since humanity began. No DNA---no son. End of story. You can call it what you want, but SON is not one of the descriptions

If the only thing that confer familial relationship was biology, you might have a point, but in order to understand the belief then you must understand that Christians believe that the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have always existed. They were present before Creation, at Creation and throughout history. (Read the Gospel of John. In the beginning was the word (logos) and the word was made flesh. The logos refers to Christ--made flesh refers to his incarnation as Jesus.)

What makes him the son of God is not his incarnation. No, it is the relationship he shares with the Father and has always shared.

You can disagree, as I am sure you will, but for Christians, biology has nothing to do with it his designation as Son. He is God's son, because that is the relationship that these two aspects of God share and have always shared. He is the Son in the Spirit. Thus Son of God becoming Jesus is incidental to the relationship that has existed since before the beginning of time.

You know, BB, a little reading on these subjects would save you a lot of misunderstanding.

You can argue all you want about the term "son," but you will be arguing semantics. I will be happy to accept that for you, the designation of son has to be biological, but for Christians the relationship transcends biology. Whether you agree or not, you will have to accept that this is their belief.

That is a specific relation defined by humanity in a uniform fashion since humanity began. No DNA---no son. End of story. You can call it what you want, but SON is not one of the descriptions.

Incidently, this is wrong too. Considering that the knowledge of the existence of DNA has only be around for a little more than 50 years this is wrong.

In fact from the ancient world well into the renaissance, people believed that the man was the only one who contributed material for reproduction. Sperm contained an intact human being; the "only" thing a woman contributed was a womb for it to gestate.

So by your definition, women throughout the long history of humanity could have never called their male children "sons" because they didn't believe that woman provided anything--certainly nothing like DNA--only a place for the male issue to grow. So, you would have to argue that the ancients, medievals and renaissance people must have believed only men had sons.

I think if you look throughout history you will find that women, indeed, had "sons." A pity you were not there to clarify it for them.

Explain to me how women could have called their offspring sons, if it was believed that they did not provide any DNA or any material for the child.

Interestingly, in the Hebrew world lineage was counted through the mother despite the fact--that if we accept your theory--they could not have possibly believed they had sons.

The bible says Joseph was the father of Jesus. Is the bible mistaken too? Are you the only bearer of the truth?

I know a couple who has adopted a boy. The boy calls the man his father; the father calls him his son. In fact everyone I know recognizes this relationship and uses this term.

Do you think I should inform him that he is not really a son to this man? That he should be forbidden from using this term?

Arguing with yourself?wtf

No, showing that your arguments have no substance or weight when put to the test.

Answer the question, how could women of the ancient world consider their offspring sons, when they believed they did not contribute any material for him?

Remember, you said, " No DNA---no son. End of story."

The bible says Joseph was begat Jesus.

Gospel, chapter, line?

That question is answered in the link I provided, Grassbobber.

Nice link, Corky.

Arguing with BB is like throwing a rubber ball against the wall. It is always received and the toss is always returned, but the wall is always the wall; it is never affected by it.

It can be fun for a while if don't expect anything more, and eventually you just have to walk away.

1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
So---who provided the DNA for Jesus?

According to that passage, it was the Holy Spirit. "For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." How the conception actually occurred is not explained, but I think an omnipotent God is capable of figuring it out.

Please explain, how an omnipotent God that created all the material universe might not be able to somehow create the physical material necessary for Mary to conceive of a child by which is Son, the logos, that eternally existed as the Son of God (See the intro to Gospel of John) might inhabit?

Also, please answer this question, how could women of the ancient world consider their offspring sons, when they believed they did not contribute any material for him?
Remember, you said, " No DNA---no son. End of story."

I wait for your responses.

So bottom, line Grendel---was Jesus the biological son of God or not?

Yes, since the Holy Spirit created the material aspect of Jesus and the Father imbued his essence into him, I would say both biologically and spiritually he the father.

Thanks for helping me clarify this for you.

Now, please answer my questions.

Watching people argue about a well-known forgery is hilarious.
Jesus is a myth for the dismally stupid.

I don't believe Zat really exists. I think I will use his argument against the existence of God to see if he does.

If Zat truly exists, I give him ten seconds to kiss my ass.

10. . .

9 . . .

8. . .

Huh!, my oh my. Wow. I felt that. It was really something.

I guess you really do exist, Zat. Sorry.

The response is the same. No DNA---no son. Which part confuses you? Sure, God can make anything, but if God calls it a SON---it MUST have gods DNA. No DNA---no son.

Nothing confuses me. I simply don't accept your premise. And as I predicted it comes down to semantics over the the use of the word "son."

I have shown you that in the ancient world your definition would not have held up--as women had sons despite the fact that they believed they provide NO material-let alone DNA--during conception.

For me and for all Christians, the belief that God supplied the physical material and his spirit in order for Mary to conceive qualifies him as father and Jesus as his son.

It is a term to designate a relationship. That is all that is necessary. You disagree. So, you are not a Christian.

(BTW, the physical and spiritual natures of Christ has been debated ages before you and I were even conceived. I would suggest that you look them up, but I think you are set in your very particular definition--because it helps you makes sense of your world view. I can understand why people do it; in fact we are all guilty of it.)

That is fine with me; that you might think I am absolutely wrong, foolish or even an idiot does not matter in the least.

Well, it has been fun. But I am done tossing the ball against the wall. I am going home.

Cheers