Haven't read the whole thread but ref Descartes, the interesting thing to me was the steps he went through to arrive at cognito ergo sum.

• I know that I doubt because if I doubt that I doubt, I am still doubting
  
• I doubt, therefore I think
  
• I think therefore I am
  
  
  I'm an agnostic. I can't actually disagree with any of the above based on logic as I understand it. But then perhaps my understanding of logic is flawed. Descartes then rambled on for a bit about how the presence of a mind that can think proves the existence of God, at which point he lost me in rhetoric and religious nonsense based on socialised opinions in my view, but the three points above appear, to me, to stand up to scientific analysis.
  
  Something must be true. If not, the statement "Nothing is true" would be true, therefore false, therefore true etc ad infinitum.
  
  There is something more complex than we understand going on here than we realise. The above simply proves it. To claim that you know what it is is largely puerile and boring as far as I am concerned.

Lilith makes a few appearances in the jewish texts but I don't think her function as Adam's first wife actually appears there (but haven't actually verified this myself). Rather, she is part of the jewish mythology, that is, the legends, stories and myths surrounding the religion. Her story was indeed developed significantly in the middle ages but this doesn't mean she didn't exist before.

Such myths are actually very common. You should visit a few greek islands sometime. I doubt you'll find even a single one that hasn't been visited by the holy spirit and/or the virgin(*) Mary, personally.

(*) yes, that "virgin" Mary who wasn't necessarily a virgin. She was called an "almah", which means either "young woman" or "virgin", with the former use being more common. This was originally translated as "virgin" and the concept stuck with the christians. However, the official jewish translation is indeed "young woman".

This christian fascination with virginity never ceases to amaze me, especially since the original text may not even have been meant to read that way.

Something must be true. If not, the statement "Nothing is true" would be true, therefore false, therefore true etc ad infinitum.

There is something more complex than we understand going on here than we realise. The above simply proves it.

You mean, you can use boolean logic to prove the existence of god? That's quite an achievement.

So, something is true. Ok, so far so good. How does this prove the existence of god?

'way2lazy2care' said:

God created animals before he created Adam. Really it is God sets out to create an help meet (helper), God brings Adam pre-created animals to name, God creates Eve.

<span style="font-weight:bold;">19:</span> And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;<br /> <br /> You take that to mean that god brings the animals, not that god formed (created) the animals out of the ground?<br />

He did create them that way... before he created Adam.

The argument is much like this:

I intend to go to the store this weekend.
Then I went to a restaurant. Then I went to a sports bar to watch the super bowl. I drank water. Then I went to the store.

Did I fail at going to the store this weekend three times before eventually going to the store? No, I did other things in addition to going to the store.

edit: note that if I drank water before going to the restaurant this statement would still not be contradictory.

My view on the OP:

Let ObjectA denote a solid or non-solid object

- If the whole world can erase ALL information available about ObjectA (even from human thought) then ObjectA will cease to exist

- If you had access to ALL space and ALL time, and if in this environment you cannot find the smallest particle of information about ObjectA then ObjectA does not exist

So ObjectA exists as long as ANY information about it is.

Example:
If I could erase all information about my friend Joe (DNA, bones, flesh, blood, etc...) he will cease to exist, but if there is any form of information about Joe (whether found at the morgue, or in burn ashes particles, etc...) then Joe whether dead or alive does exist.

So I believe it is with God as well... the fact that there is a lot of information about him, whether this is man-made-or-twisted, divinely inspired or not, altered or original, means to me that he exists. He will cease to exist if ALL information to the smallest particle about him is erased.

Surely we should be asking for proof that god does exist? Asking for proof that god doesn't exist is like asking for proof that unicorns don't live on the moon.

There is no evidence that god exists, it is up to anyone who thinks otherwise to provide the evidence to the contrary.

He did create them that way... before he created Adam.

The argument is much like this:

I intend to go to the store this weekend.
Then I went to a restaurant. Then I went to a sports bar to watch the super bowl. I drank water. Then I went to the store.

Did I fail at going to the store this weekend three times before eventually going to the store? No, I did other things in addition to going to the store.

edit: note that if I drank water before going to the restaurant this statement would still not be contradictory.

That argument makes no sense and makes a lot of assumptions about the translation to English. It seems clear to me that Genesis 1 and 2 are both chronologies describing creation. Even if we pretend your case is true... there are plenty of other examples. What were Jesus' last words? How did Judas die?

That argument makes no sense and makes a lot of assumptions about the translation to English. It seems clear to me that Genesis 1 and 2 are both chronologies describing creation. Even if we pretend your case is true... there are plenty of other examples. What were Jesus' last words? How did Judas die?

It makes perfect sense. And how does the original argument not make any assumptions about the translation to English? The whole argument hinges on an accurate translation to english.

Jesus' last words.

Judas' death.

'Aardvajk' said:

Something must be true. If not, the statement "Nothing is true" would be true, therefore false, therefore true etc ad infinitum.

There is something more complex than we understand going on here than we realise. The above simply proves it.

You mean, you can use boolean logic to prove the existence of god? That's quite an achievement.

So, something is true. Ok, so far so good. How does this prove the existence of god?

I didn't say it does. I said it proves that something more complex than we understand is going on here. That is, I guess, subjective but I'm not arguing from a religious point of view.

There is no evidence that god exists, it is up to anyone who thinks otherwise to provide the evidence to the contrary.

If I say that I can't, ever, prove it, but I believe it anyway, am I allowed to go on believing, or will I be ridiculed for it? Because, you know, it is 'up to me to prove it'? Prove what? As far as I believe, the existence of a physical universe is proof of a Creator. My mind can't accept a universe made of nothing. For me. Me. For you, no. Can't we settle this at that?

Don't confuse religious people that go around busting people's balls about their faith with people of faith that keep it personal and just speak their mind. I respect your beliefs(or non-beliefs, or whatever), I don't see why you shouldn't respect mine. I don't believe you're going to 'burn in hell' or anything because you don't believe.

It's funny. Here we are, some of us proposing some more rational view of religion, and some of you guys say 'no no, it's the palaiolithic, scary view that is the canon'. And go on talking about who was the first girlfriend of Adam.Because apparently the tangent on how Knowledge should be used and not abused with arrogance, wasn't interesting enough. Yeah, why talk if pharmaceuticals companies have the right to patent life-saving drugs and prohibit those that need them the most to use them, if we can talk about Lillith and if she mated with an archangel or not? Seriously people, what the hell. If I was an atheist, and when I was an atheist, I would prefer a rational and down to earth Christianism than a hardcore, fundamentalist one that wastes time trying to figure out how many angels can dance in the head of a pin or treats women as inferiors or other such nonsense. What's the deal here? I don't get it.