One thing many people go against on the evidence for God is that there might be more than one. People say that all the logical proof that there is a Intellegent Infinite Creator doesn't prove that there is only one. Well I was thinking, space (in the human abstraction) is the paradigm that there is space between two different objects creating the conception of there is quantity for things to be seperated by location. Since God is said to be infinite with not existing within the conception of spacetime, how can there be more than one God when quantity doesn't exist as the Gods do not exist in matter? There must be only one God. Other than that, I see no point in more than one God. Because if the Gods were infinitely intellegent and wise, they'd all agree with the same thing because all of them would know what is absolutely right, yes? They'd all act the same, think the same, and have the same nature. So ultimately, it would be the same as if there was only one of them.

Interesting theory and quite unique that you are thinking for yourself on a philosophical level to develop your own understanding. I used to wonder, since everything is just circles (cyclical systems) and waves (from colors we see to our electrical impulses that allow us to think and move) that there is a source to it all.

Sometimes people like to worship the creation instead of the creator though after all many parts of the creation are beautiful especially what we consider nature.

How else am I supposed to create an understanding. I find other people pretty ignorant for just sticking to what other people say instead of thinking to find the truth.

We've been though this before & one truth is not everyones.

I'd say anyone who believes in the bible is doing exactly that. Simply going by what others say.

If two "truths" contradict then one is true and the other is false. Whichever has the least evidence is the least true.


Unless they have evidence to support a reasonable belief in the Bible.

This is the basic Islamic belief, there is only one God, He needs no helpers.

I do not agree with that when one religion is wiped out by another that does not mean that one is more true then another.

I didn't say that. I said that the one with the most evidence is the most true. If one religion wipes out another it doesn't mean a thing. If anything, it takes credibility away from the religion. If you truly believe that your religion is true then you don't need to kill others to prove it.

I'm sorry, I personally do not see the correlation between your space description, and your one god theory. The idea of God subjectively believed to be infinate, and probably not existing within the conception of spacetime, well, I think has a different set of thinking, then thinking then there is only one god. God could be controlling things from a plane of existence that is totally different. Which of course, is only subjective, but so could your theory as well. On another, there could be a plane of existence, that is on a set of ways, that we don't understand, that we cannot even fathom whether there is room for more than one god or not. There is always infinate truths out there, that we don't know. We will always will not know everything ever, in this lifespan, so how can something subjective, become conclusively objective?




You don't know that. How can you say, that all gods behave the same? I don't think you can pinpoint this one God's behavior, because I see so many here, in books, in conversation, describe God totally different from each other's perspectives and statements. I just cannot see how this God's behavior is the same, when there are so many ways in seems to act from all perspectives.

Saying there is a God, many gods, or no god is all, is a highly presumed statement, that in reality cannot be proven.





Where do you find that? Do you also mean, people listening and reading from people who show proof as well?






I find that is true. You shouldn't do anything to anyone else, if you believe your religion is true. I just wonder, at others who have crossed the lines from prosetylizing others, to killing whole groups of people, just because they think their religion is true. Doesn't it matter really, if anyone else believes your religion, if you are assured in your own religion?

Well, in some cases (Like with Judaism) the belief is that we as a humanity are all in the same boat.

Imagine:

Your on a boat with a friend.

Your friend starts to drill a hole in the bottom of the boat and water starts rushing in.

You say, "What the hell are you doing?"

Your friend says, "Don't worry, I'm only drilling the hole on my side of the boat."

You wouldn't want this to happen to you right? Well, in the same way Judaism is a religion where when each time a person sins world peace and unity is made farther away and everytime someone does something good, world peace and unity is brought closer. Thus, through obeying the commandments and connecting to God we bring life into the world. People are made better, more efficient, happier people and the world ultimately becomes unified and peaceful. Thus, it would be highly beneficial to spread what Judaism is to many many many people. However, to kill peole in order to achieve that defeats the purpose and makes the world worse.

i beleive there is a great number of gods. and there is a god above all, above everything from which everything stems. i think all the gods would think alike to a certain degree but also have differences. they would all be infanetly loving and love would be their main tool. who knows maybe they have created their own places like earth in which they have placed themselves in many different forms to experience themselves and better themselves from that experience. the possibilities are endless

That is an interesting little example, but I see a fault in it for you. You used an example, that it definate. Yeah, I see myself in a boat about to sink, when my friend drills into it. Yeah, I will try to get them to stop. This is an actuall, proven situation, that I can prove, and to prove to my friend, if he or she is sane. Plus, yeah, I'm looking out for myself, but it is understandable, the will to live is strong.

Now, you say that God's commandments made people better. Is that true over all? Can you prove that every person made this planet better, by God's commandments? We are talking about something from a book, presumed that God said it. I also have seen people read that book, and still hurt others. I have seen that with my own eyes and experience. That is just the tip of the ice berg. Also, I am assuming you are using the prosetylizer as self centered, by the boat reference, that they think they are sinking in their religion, if someone else doesn't believe it. If that is what I see you assuming, then I have no respect for that. In the end, you used an proven example, to prove unproven belief system. I wish you could see that.
Frankly, going back you your response to my previous question, my point is, that if you are assured in your religion, your belief system, then you wouldn't have to try to get others into it, you would feel you belief, and only belief you have faith in the system. I could be wrong, but being I have my own belief system, that is what I believe. I feel never having to try to prosetylize anyone else into it.

Observant Jewish communities statistically have a better quality of life.


Your right, it happens, but that can be true of anything. Suppose you read your drivers training manual and take it to mean that you should go around hitting people with your car and killing them. Does that mean that the driver's training manual is flawed and wrong?


That's not what I said. What I said is that if someone else does something that works against peace that effects humanity as a whole. If we are trying to make world peace, and make the world a better place, those who are not trying to do that and working against that are making your job harder. We cant' have peace if there are those who would work against that peace.


I stated it from point of view. From my view it is something that is proven. I believe in Judaism and the evidence for my religion is the record of the existence of the Jewish people.

That's fine, and perfectly ok. But there is nothing wrong with trying to convert the person who would work against the goals of peace. Your a peaceful person, I have no need to try and convert you. A murder is someone who is not peaceful and is in greater need of rectification.

I agree hence why I do not believe that Christiany is the right path.

Well, first off, going through this post, I have to say in my point of view. I think you're a fun debater.


I wonder if they have links, so I can study them. It is easier to say that, but is it still just as easy to prove it?



No, I'm not saying it means that. It does mean, that some are not paying attention to it. Which goes with my point, I'm not saying that the bible is telling some people to do bad stuff, but it's the people doing it. I'm saying that we cannot also use the bible as a foregone truth, but some people, the way I see it, use as such.
Also, here is another example of using of one example, that can be proven over the over. The driving manual is made of rules, if broken, actually will show why it is wrong. Drive into someone else's car, you see a badly damaged car, and a hurt person driving that car. One has to read the driver manuel, to take the test atleast, or abide by it's rules, which are proven to be actual rules that protect you. Considering the bible doesn't have to be read, and I haven't owned it or read it being in a secular country, I can't tell if it is going to hurt or help. That in itself, is something that cannot be proven to actually help others. I have helped(my hersay I know) and I didn't read the bible. The driving rules are exact.



Yes, that makes sense, but who is to definately proven rules from a particular book is the definate way of achieving peace?



Yes, but you used an example, that is objective, while you used it to prove a subjective example, that could be used toward your point of view, but to try to prove it to me, in my own subjective point of view, it will not work. It has to be objective all around.


If it's an objective goal or goals of peace.
Yes, and I agree with you. But I am talking about murder as a result of prosetylizing. It's trying to understand the reasoning behind prosetylizing really. It really confuses me, that prosetylizing would end in harassment and possibly murder, that is what gets me.

Which I have yet to see.



The bible talks of brutal killings, and even though the ten commandments tells YOU not to kill, your "all-loving" God kills people and then claims to still love them, so that can easily make it that much more easy to kill someone if they are damned by your beliefs and you can deny any hatred.

Ignoring all exegesis, the first commandment clearly suggests the existence of multiple gods, just as New Testament verses tell us that they also adhered to reincarnation.

What are you talking about??

"Thou shalt have no other god before me." A strange demand for a solitary god, no? Obviously there were other gods and before someone resorts to the old "idol theory," let's consider that when God referred to idols, he clarified it by stating "graven images," etc.

Concerning the New Testament reference, when Jesus asked John the Baptist who the people thought he was, the reply was that they believed he was Elias returned. Elias had been dead for centuries, thus the people clearly believed in reincarnation.

The people believed that Elijah (a.k.a. Elias) had been taken directly to heaven without having died. (2 Kings 2:11) So, presumably, he could return without being reincarnated.

Return of the hero who is gone but not dead, to return in the moment of greatest need, is a sturdy motif in many places.

No, that stated that man should not imagine gods and worship them instead of him, not that there were other gods than him. -_-

perhaps you do not know the history of the bible....


Exodus 12:12
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.

"And the Lord [Hebrew Jehovah] God [Hebrew Elohim] said, 'Behold, the man is become as one [Hebrew echad] of Us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:'--" (Gen. 3:22).

Ah, but on another occasion the theme was introduced again and this time the answer included Jeremiah.

Matthew 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

You can look it up.


Teenagers drive all the time without taking their drivers test. In the same way a person can still do good without having ever read the Bible. However, if one does read it and read what it says then one will realize that it is a helpful book. If you kill someone, obviously that is wrong, if you ovbserve the many rituals of Judaism you learn self-discipline and self-control which can help you in other areas of life. The usefulness of the rules of the Bible are just as proven as the usefulness of driving laws. When you obey, you are protected and safer, when you don't obey you may harm yourself. And then there are times when no matter how much you obey you will still get hurt and times when you can disobey all the time and not get hurt at all.




You find the system with the most evidence to support it's success, and that is Judaism. The existence of the Jewish people is a phenomenon that is socially improbable and almost impossible. The fact of the matter is, the Jews are still here, a large amount of them still follow Orthodox Judaism as it was at Sinai, and those people do experience a higher quality of life because of it.


Why does the view need to be objective? There is no such thing as objective. The only way to be objective is to know everything (which is impossible) or to know nothing (which is also impossible). Thus, I can only provide the view that is most logical to me to you in order that you would understand my logic and hopefully agree with me.


Only in a person with no self-control. I can prosetylize without becoming murderous at all because I am truly devoted to the cause of Judaism, and that is peace. If a person is TRULY devoted to their beliefs then they will not murder for them because that is anti-thetical to the belief. It's why I tell christians that they should learn from JC. The fruit of the tree will let you know what kind of tree it is. You can say with your lips all you want, but if you do something different then your lips lie. Any christian who says that they love God and love JC but doesn't ACT in such a way is a person that isn't christian.

The main reason I left christianity is because the christian Bible (mostly Paul) doesn't require any action of its adherents except to prosetlyze. In fact, Paul says that using deception is an ok means to save someone and that lieing is acceptable to bring someone to JC. That kind of mindset is not what JC taught at all.



It's because you dont' want to see it. You have seen it, but it just isn't enough for you because you don't want to believe it.



What innocent person has God ever killed?

No, no, no, that's not right. You provided the statements, I think you should provide a link. Until then, then maybe I don't believe it.


I don't think you understand my point. Like the boat story, which can be a proven actual time situation, to drive, you have to actually go and get the drivers manual. A teenager driving all the time without their driver's test, well, I certainly hope not, because that is against the law. If you mean, while they are learning, they have a student's permit, same thing. Not everyone is going to have the bible, when they are born into a family. Like me, and my siblings and I got along fine. It's the same, one is proven and assured, and the other is not proven, and not always accessable. I'm sorry, I do not see it as the same thing.




Yeah, the Jews are still here, so are Catholics, Babtist, Wiccan's, Atheists, and the list goes on. Other examples you cite, I'll believe it, when I see a link. I'm not going to look it up, I shouldn't have to.


I see why you did it, but I don't get where there are simularities. It's objective, because you started it off using an objective example.



I hate prosetylizing period! I don't think it's right. It's getting into someone's business, where you have no right to get into. I see it as a form of harassment. I think it's inconsiderate, bordering on insulting. I think it's wrong, and I believe it should never be done! That is why, I ask about why bad things happen, when people are spreading their faith. I think they should never ever try to force others to believe something. It's best to leave them alone! Even if they are murderous. Call the authorities, to protect others, other than that, it's not your business, except to run away.

I will not scour the internet for a link in order to prove that Jewish communities have higher qualities of life. It really isn't that important whether your believe me about that or not.


The Bible is always accessible, there are so many places where one can learn it now that it isn't even funny. I understand why you believe as you do concerning my examples. I suppose there is nothing I can do to change that.



The difference is that the Jewish people have been through tragedies which no other society has been through and has survived. That is improbable due to the small size of the Jews and the lack of autonomy until recently.

Go Here For More



There is no such thing as objectivity.


There are no such thing as rights, rights are an invention to sate man's greed.


How so?


I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but I didn't say anything about forcing others to believe something. Proselytizing it offering your point of view in a persuasive manner so that the proselytized would believe it.

Well, it's not that I don't believe or do believe, but the fact you made the statement. Whatever, you don't care that I believe, but I'm confused now that you don't care. I just think, if someone says something, and is asked for backup, like a link, they shouldn't tell others they are trying to get to believe, to do the work themselves. So in that matter, I don't think I can use your example to believe you.



Like where? I don't see it. I don't care to learn from it, but I am not being bombarded with accessable ways either. I just think that for some to assume, that we are to follow the rules of the bible, like it's a given, because not everyone has it. I grew up in a secular family, with no bible and no reading it. I now, have life experiences to tell me, it's not important. I do not see it being relevant in today's world.
Exactly.



Yes, they have suffered, I do know that. That's not saying others haven't. What about the Native Americans? Although, I do not understand, how this came from the Jewish are still here, because they adhered to the rules of the bible, or Torah, and then explain that they suffered. Maybe it's my learning disability, but I am having a hard time at concerning the correlation. *Shrugs*







---This is what I am talking about. You are using an example that can be proven, for it happens outside of us, for all to see what have you, objectively, and you are comparing it to

QUOTE

subjective Aadjective[/size]1 immanent, subjective
of a mental act performed entirely within the mind; "a cognition is an immanent act of mind" 2 subjective
taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment"

[size="1"]which a belief is taking place, ie: rules and how each believer views and uses them. Objective is a good word to use to show you what I mean. Ok, I'll explain it another way. You take the boat scene, which everyone believes can happen and foresee. You take rules in a book, not always accessable, from someone not really been seen by everyone at the same time, and really don't know if these rules and the implications actually will take into effect. I'm just saying, you cannot say with proof, that what the bible tells you is going to happen. So, trying to prosetylize to someone just so they don't go down and pull the world into God's wrath or whatever, you could be more than likely wasting time.

That means, there are such things as rights. Where is your proof and source, that there is no such thing as rights? Plus, this is your response to me saying about getting into other people's business. Are you saying that it's alright to bother other people?


It's like me, constantly telling to not believe in God. It's insulting you in that you believe. It's bothering you, until you do as I say? It's not being left alone and in peace. That's how so.



Persuasive manner?!?!?!? Being persuasive is wrong! How would you like it if someone was persuasive in getting to not believe? They were persuasive to you, so that you would have to believe it?
by the way, your statement: "Proselytizing it offering your point of view in a persuasive manner so that the proselytized would believe i" is forcing others to believe. Persuasading is the same as forcing, in my boat.

I mean, I could do it, it would just be overly time consuming and would be mostly pointless because your beliefs (I assume) are not violent or anti-peaceful, in which case you are already living in such a way that I wouldn't have to convince you of my own beliefs.



You don't have to see it as relevant. The Bible asks that if we aren't going to do anything the least we could do is to be good people and God will accept that. There isn't a need for you to learn the Bible unless you come to the realization that there is a God and wish to serve him.



It would be hard for one to understand if they didn't know the Bible. It's a matter of belief.









Well, in order for their to be rigths their has to be someone to decide which rights people have. In Jewish law there is no such thing as the concept of rights because it isn't necessary.




How so?


I wouldn't care.


A person who would try to convince me that what I believe about God is false would not be able to persuade me. There are only two people on this planet who can do that, God and myself.



I'm sorry you feel that way. But I don't see how have a discussion with someone (like we are now) is forcing. Do you feel that I am forcing my views on you?

In the sense, then we have a stalement here. There is no point in you trying.

Right, there isn't a need. But this is stemming back to the bible and it's rules and comparing to a boat scenero that is more of a reality if it does occur. So, I stand by my feeling, that it is two different things, and thus so, I think you cannot try to 'help' someone by using the bibles rules, in a manner that you think you are helping. I know what I feel about this.

Right. But belief in one thing, and how people survive to be strong and good, is two different things. I don't see how you can get me to believe what you are trying to say.
Another stalemate.








Well, that's Jewish law, not secular law. And rights are made by man, because of what man can do to others. Plus, rights are for everyone, and not something that religion can stop.




It's being forceful, going against someone's wises. I would say rights, but I'm beginning to see that you don't understand that. I cannot believe you are asking this.


Including in being successive to get you to believe they did? Even to the point, that their pursuasive manners included violence? You wouldn't care? I find that strongly doubtful, or you wouldn't care about my answers up to now.


They could use violence. Even if you don't believe, and they do not succeed in getting you to believe, you would suffer at their hands still. This is what I am talking about, that the manner in which it is done, is wrong. Don't you see what I am explaining?



Actually no, because you're breaking down points, that has nothing to do with you forcing your views. In which I cannot understand why you are doing that. I'm trying to explain very simple non-comparisons, and you seem to go further into meanings of certain things I said. But to feeling sorry that I feel that it's wrong to prosetylize, well I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I just want people to leave others alone, when they don't want to believe in something that is different to their natural beliefs. The fact, you think it's ok to push others into thinking something different from their natural beliefs, I then feel sorry, that you thinks it's ok. I might be wrong about you on that, but if it's true, then I guess I'm shocked at this, and shocked that I cannot get you to understand why I am shocked.

In finale words, a terrible sad stalemate.

I don't know about you, I really don't.

Of course, there can be infinite gods.

I said, "ignoring exegesis . . . ."

Which I replied against in the beginning. Anyways, there's two definitions of infinite. Infinite as in eternal or infinite as not finite. Not limited. Eternity or forever quantity can not exist as eternity is still finite excite with infinite quantity. Such existence seems ridiculous. Say there's infinite hamburgers. I give away all the hamburgers. Infinity minus infinity equals 0. Let's say I give away every odd number hamburger (if they were lined up in order). Infinity minus infinity equals infinity. Let's say I give away every hamburger except 4 of them. Infinity minus infinity equals 4? Infinite quantity just seems ridiculous.

So then, if a 40 year old man wants to have sex with a 5 year old girl, and the 5 year old girl wants to do it, would you leave them alone?

I didn't say that it's ok to push people. Trying to persuade someone and pushing someone are two different things. There's a huge difference between me asking you to jump off a cliff, and me pushing you off that cliff.

Now, here is a good time to bring something that is real, the law. Of course not, because this is where the law comes into affect, dealing with the welfare of the child. Personally, I think you just insulted my intelligence.

But, you are not showing me the difference. Asking is one thing, but if it is just that. You used pursuading, which is more than asking. Unless, of course you think it's the same thing?

Laws vary from state to state and country to country and have no consistency. We can only be glad that expressing your faith and teaching others about it is not a crime. Well in some areas I guess it is a crime but not anywhere in America.

You said we should leave people alone right? The child wants to do it and the adult wants to do it. Shouldn't we just leave them alone?


Persuading would be like if I said "You should jump off this cliff and here's why" and then I present all the reasons why you should jump off. I haven't pushed you off, that would be forcing my opinion on you. But I don't see what is wrong with persuading people to do/believe stuff.

It's illegal in classrooms.

You're right, it's not a crime, and it shouldn't be. I certainly hope, when you mean by teaching others, it's in an environment where every one wants to be taught, ie: a class or a group who wants to talk about such stuff and be taught by it. You can express, that you are also no interested in other's faith as well.

After having looked at your profile, I found out you're only 16 years old. No wonder! I don't think you have any idea about half the things I am commenting on! From this last statement, I don't think you get what I am saying here. Should I be a bit more descriptive? I meant leaving people alone in their own faith or non faith. What you just stated is a pathetic, reaching, totally not relevant to what I am trying to say, kind of statement. I find fault in your reasoning, that is just me. You will not convince me, especially now that you seem to pull in examples, that have no relevancy to the points on hand.



You know something, I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. I don't think you know what you are trying to say. You also use examples, that to me, are not good examples to explain the points.
It's more in presenting reasons, it's making sure those reasons are pushed onto the person. And yes, it's seems you are trying to push me off the cliff, no matter what you think. You may think that you don't see anything wrong with it, but I do.

You know what, I could say more, but I'm afraid you would not really focus on what I have to say, and try to see something different from my words, or make up a reason for what I said. You can continue, but I don't think you understand a thing of what I am trying to say.
I'm 41, female, married for 17 years, two kids, lived in many states, and have seen 25 more years of things than you! I have seen good and bad, in every place I have been to, and see your reasoning by others in the various places I have lived in, flunk in the game of life. I do not think you know, half the things I am aware of, but think you can advise me just the same. Sorry, you can't, and will never do so. I can listen, I can read posts here, and I can keep an open mind. I also know, that even at my age and experience, that I do not know as much as I want to, as much as I seem to read from your posts.

Please consider how you come across and how you see others who know more by sheer experience and age. If you don't want to, that is up to you, but it's probably best that you do.

That is an ad hominem argument. Throwing out the age card is a terrible way to discredit someone you are debating, especially in mid debate, and in no way adds validity to your argument or discredits his. I am sure he understands all you have to say and simply disagrees.



Either way without even knowing his age he appears more mature than many others in some of these matters.

It has perfect relevancy. You didn't say "leave people alone in their own faith." You just said leave people alone. What if the faith of the person is that 40 year olds and 5 years should be together and both a 5 and 40 year agree to the relationship? Should we leave them alone?



I am trying to show you that there is a difference between persuading and forcing, you said that there isn't.


Not actually, it isn't.


In my eyes that is a problem with your perception of what I am saying. I am not trying to push you off of a cliff, I am just presenting my case to you.


I describe the above with one word, "Pride".

In same ways, he is. In other ways, it doesn't seem he has the maturity to grasp at things that I thought he should grasp at. It's more than just knowing his age. Reading his posts up to reading his profile, something was not right. What he was posting sounded generalized and sheltered. When I found out how old he was, it was like, bingo that made sense! I'm also a bit miffed, because he was discussing sex, when he is at an age where he doesn't know all of it. I didn't say any of it, all of it, and I really do not believe a minor has any emotional maturity to even advise it, no matter how mature he seems. I shouldn't be discussing it, assuming he has the experienced maturity to know what I mean. I regret discussing that. I'm sorry, that is how I see it.

There are plenty of adults quite immature in both those areas regardless of how old they are. Some sixteen year olds are quite sophisticated in this regard some even showing more wisdom than adults twice or three times their age. Just an observation. Sorry as well I just believe people should stick to the topics and not take it to a personal level and start discussing the poster.

That is not why I posted what I posted. I think you are getting everything wrong. I disagree with everything you say, and no matter how you see it, I think it's wrong. You don't get it, and I thought I was explaining as best as I can. I guess I cannot explain it enough for you to see the reasoning of my points. You are stuck on your reasoning. Very well, you are upholding to that.

I very much disagree with them. You should be fine with that.

You know what, I think that is a good point. I may have not been in the right to do that, maybe even in just your eyes. I was in shocked that I was discussing things with a minor, and that was indeed a very big shock. I'm sorry my shock got the better of me.
You are also right, some people are mature and immature no matter their age, but their actions do show some part of it, and I managed to see it until I knew.