Crowquill>>>>Jesus>>>>>God.



And the holy spirit can suck it.

Haha because it's a very lengthy answer.

:

Underoath
Mortal Treason


/end.

He did ask for good bands didn't he? Those two bands fail.

Notice how you never described why.

Ok here we go.......................

Underoath is just a commercial hardcore/metalcore/screamo band that really doesn't have anything new to put on the table in terms of musical originality. Mortal Treason is in a different genre, but either way they fail for the same reason above.

Agreed.

Yeah, I completely agree, Act of Depression and Cries Of The Past epitomized commercial screamo/hardcore/metalcore, you condescending douchebag; learn your fucking genres.

Underoath was most definitely one of the major pioneers of Christian Death Metal, and if you deny their musical originality when Dallas Taylor was present then you obviously haven't listened to much music.

You're open to your own opinions in terms of musical aesthetic of course, but seriously, how could you classify Act Of Depression and Cries Of The Past commercial screamo??
You should have known that they no longer label themselves as a "Christian" band, restricting my recommendation of their music to their older albums, for this thread (and for any other, of course).

Mortal Treason was also a great band, their songs are filled with their beliefs in such passionate, expressive forms.
And even though they played in a style that catered to the tough guy breakdowns in most Christian metalcore acts of the time, they actually wrote lyrics that articulately intimated their opinions and thoughts.

you tell these morons, Jake. although I'd consider Taylor's Underoath (Christian) black metal. even though by definition that's an oxymoron...


/waits for a RARbash

YOU DONT KNOW METAL STOP BEING WRONG

Who you talking to Ethan?

I was being RAR.

and how.

No? Even if I did believe he was real I'd still look at the bible and see how much of a scum bag he is. A lot of his actions (in the bible) range from morbid to childish. I would not call this behavior perfect.

god is awesome he's in my stats class.

*bes clutch*

LOL@ BLACK METAL BAND. Nothing backs that up. If anything they were a metalcore outfit with SOME death metal leanings. Raspy vocals are automatically Black Metal? Shut up. "White-Black Metal" or whatever they're calling that Christian Black Metal isn't BM. It can't be. ***gots. All of 'em.

If you combined UnderOATH and Manowar would it be black power metal?

No, it'd be an S&M convention.

nah, God would wear a loincloth though

You one-upping me mofo?

The concept of God is perfect. God has to be perfect or else he's not God.

That's the Christian belief of God, some religions see life, including it's creator, as being imperfect.

Also, if God is perfect, then the Commandments, supposedly written by "Him" must be perfect.
That of course is bullshit, they aren't perfect, they pertain to humanity, a flawed entity.
The Commandments are just the reflection of the beliefs of early religious officials trying to rule their people.

woop! you crack me up. stay br00taL br0.

Too bad the concept of absolute perfection directly contradicts itself anyway.

In what way? I'd assume you're saying that since it's a human concept it cannot be perfect due to mankinds imperfection. But that to me is a copout.

xasthur and burzum are pretty christian mate
christian rock music/

The concept of god is even illogical. Logic > fantasy worlds.

Was that a joke or just a really bad misinterpretation.

Sort of, if you combine the bad and joke part you'd be completely right.

lol their singer is in jail for murder and arson. it's definetly a joke.

OMGMETAL!

lawlz inorite?! *SERIOUS FACE*

METAL IS SRRS BUIZNESS

Perfection would require that God is both all knowing and all powerful. This would require that God knows everything that will happen ever and have the ability to do anything he wants. If God knows everything he knows what he'll do next. If he were capable of changing his mind he wouldn't have true knowledge of everything, on the other hand if is he is incapable of changing his mind than he lacks a power and is not perfect. Since it is impossible for him to both know everything and do everything he is not perfect.

What if he just doesn't want to change his mind?

That is assuming that the concept of "next" and "time" even apply to a deity, who could, for instance, create the final plan or great design first and then have reality (as we perceive it) unravel backwards.

The problem is I didn't assume they applied to him, I just assumed that they exist. If there is "time" than there is a "next" and vice versa. Since we don't do everything at once it is apparent that there is a next meaning that things happen chronologically and that time very well exists. Now lets introduce a being into the structure that doesn't operate by these principles while the rest of things do. This being is all powerful, all knowing, and somehow exists in all periods of time and all moments at once. Since he has knowledge of all moments ever that means everything is predetermined. If it is predetermined than he can't change his mind because that would mean he lacks knowledge, and thus isn't all knowing. On the other hand he can't change his mind and therefore lacks a power and thus isn't all powerful.

It also means you can't choose to make an action that isn't the action of the current moment known to and existed in by "God." You can't make a decision about the next moment that is a different decision than the decision that you have decided to make about the next moment in this moment. This in and of itself isn't exactly a contradiction, however the Christian deity supposedly granted us free will, which makes no sense under these condition.

Contradiction number two is that to be perfect he has to be all powerful. However, there is no way for him to handle powers that are in direct contradiction with themselves rationally. Can God make an immovable object and lift it? If he can than he can't lift it and thus doesn't have a power. If he can't than he doesn't have a power. If he can make an immovable object and then later makes it movable to move it than it still doesn't prove that he can move an immovable object. Being all powerful simply makes no sense. There is no rational reason to believe anything can be all powerful, and thus there is no reason that anything is capable of being perfect.

Lastly, a perfect being would only encompass positive traits. He would have no negative traits and thus would have no rational reason to make the universe. He would never be unsatisfied, bored, or feeling needy and thus would never feel a reason to create the world. Of course he could have felt "love" for the universe and then made it, however this means he would have to imagine it first. God would never spend time imagining things because he would always feel satisfied and thus would never want to use his imagination. Think about it. When you're done with eating dinner and you're already full do you go get another plateful? Of course not, because you're full and don't feel the need or the want to. Likewise God would always be satisfied with what he has and never need to imagine new things. A perfect being wouldn't create the universe simply because he wouldn't feel the need or the want to.


So in conclusion: There is no logical reason to believe in a perfect being because it is silly. There is no logical reason to believe that a perfect being would create the universe. Lastly, if you still manage to uphold such silly beliefs than you have no reason to believe you have free will.

I agree with most of that, although your wording is questionable, along with a couple of theories.

In my own argument:
There might in fact be a diety, but why does it have to be all-powerful, omnipotent, and perfect?

A diety could also mean many things, too many people imagine a human male, thanks to Christianity.

I agree!

Lets look up what a deity is...
We've already thrown out number as GOD is an all powerful being, which makes no sense.

For number 2 we'll need to define "god" and "goddess" which I'll get to later.

Number three doesn't mean much. Basically any person or thing that is hyped as being good or powerful enough is a deity. This is a pretty ignorable definition as far as creationism is concerned unless you want to discuss how all life came from second generation console gaming systems.

So what does god mean? Time to ask Webster again...

Number one we just debunked. All powerful is nonsensical.

Number two denotes is "believed" to. This wording is very iffy and could easily mean "anything that you want to be a god is a god." Once we get into the "specifically" part we further this idea. "One controlling a particular aspect of reality" literally means that since I am controlling a message on the internet which is real and thus part of reality that I am a god, by this token there are a lot of gods. The second definition doesn't help said stance any.

The third definition is right on par with it. If I hold myself to great value I am a god. I am a god twice. Hooray me.

The fourth is even wackier. Hitler was a god.

In short, the best conclusive definition we can come up with for deity is "something of value and or power that may or may not be worshiped." This is ultimately no help as it neither proves nor debunks the intelligent design theory, just that if something greater did make us that it could be considered a deity or a god, but by definition is not God. God does not exist, a god could possibly exist or have existed.

On the other hand I disbelieve in the theory of intelligent design. As of right now science is pointing more toward abiogenesis and evolution being more plausible. That is not to say that intelligent design has been disproven, rather that microevolution from non-intelligent (not quite lifeless, the term abiogenesis is quite misleading) lead into macroevolution. In either case scientists are still on the search and I'm sure something will come about sooner or later.
If I'm going to worship it she better have some damn fine feet.