Proof of the existence of God set down on paper

[Hush]

Kurt Gödel was best known as a mathematician and secondarily known as an extreme eccentric. After his death, he became known for something else: creating an ontological proof of the existence of God.

http://blog.io9.com/5805775/proof-of-th ... n-on-paper

[Selectedmarksman]

That's just a tautology, based on an arbitrary definition. Not impressive, or convincing.

[trey_phish83]

lol, he didn't change anything on how i perceive god. because it doesn't matter.

why should i care about god being real or not when i can't fill my gas tank, or heat my house, or put food on my table?

[Crosshair]

There are already several arguments (Or proofs, depending on your point of view.) for gods existence, this would just be another one. I would like to hear a philosophers take on this. Perhaps Dr. William Craig has some stuff on this one, I'll have to look around.

Here are 3 easiest ones that come to mind. All 3 are logically valid. If you want to deny the conclusion you have to deny one of the primacies.

Kalam Cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Going from that, one can then determine that the first cause is a necessary, eternal, timeless, changeless, immaterial cause. It also follows that this cause must be an intelligent being, because if a cause is eternal, then the effect should be eternal. The only way for a cause to be eternal, but the effect to not be eternal is for that effect to be an intelligent being which can choose to create a finite time ago. Example: A man who has been sitting from eternity can suddenly choose to stand up. Likewise, an eternal intelligence can choose to create only a finite time ago.

Teleological Argument

1. The fine tuning found in the physical constants and quantities of the universe is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
2. It is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Many had hopped that Super String Theory would get rid of the fine tuning problem, but it doesn't. Last I checked, SST allows for 10^500 possible universes, all but a tiny sliver are life prohibiting.

Just to give some context on the fine tuning that science has discovered.

If gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.

If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons.

If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

There are at least 30 such parameters which are all fine tuned and independent from each other.

Moral Argument

1. If god does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore god exists.

With modern science backing up the Teleological and Kalam arguments, and very few atheists willing to claim that moral values and duties do not exist, the theist finds themselves on firm footing. It is the atheist who finds themselves on shaky ground, unable to deny any of the three arguments unless they are willing to pay a very steep intellectual price.

[trey_phish83]

thats kinda forcing your beliefs on someone that god exists.

if santa clause doesn't exist, then presents and xmas trees don't exist.
presents and xmas trees do exist
therefore santa clause is real

good stuff.

[Blaubart]

This is going to be a fun thread.

The linked article is BS of course.

1. God is the greatest thing since even before sliced bread.
2. If there was no God, something greater than God must have created the universe.
3. There can be nothing greater than God.
4. God exists.

That's some funny s--t right there!

For #4 to be true, #'s 1, 2 & 3 must be true. 1, 2 and 3 are all ideological assumptions equal to or greater than the assumption that God exists, and of course can not be proven as facts.

Next!

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. The cause is God.

Um, no. This is what I believe was one of the many reasons that man invented God. To provide the easy way out of explaining what man doesn't yet understand. Furthermore, this can be disproved by their own reasoning. If God exists, then put Him to the same test:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. God began to exist.
3. Therefore, God has a cause.
4. Who or what created God then?

Oh yeah, God is eternal, all powerful, infinite, and impossible for us to fully comprehend. Is it just me, or does He sound a lot like the universe? I know, let's make up something to explain how God came to be!

Teleological Argument

1. The fine tuning found in the physical constants and quantities of the universe is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
2. It is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

I take exception to numbers 1 and 2. These assumptions do nothing more than show our ignorance on the universe. As a result of that ignorance, they are saying there has to be a God. This reminds me of magicians. The only way that rabbit could have come out of a hat that I just saw was empty, is by chance, necessity or magic. It was not chance or necessity. It must have been magic!

Moral Argument

1. If god does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore god exists.

More unpolished bullshit.

Moral values and duties exist because man has learned over time that there are actions which cause pain and suffering to others and eventually to himself. If he is going to reduce his own suffering, then he must convince others to follow these rules.

Really, it doesn't require God to teach us that everyone killing each other isn't in our own best interest.

It does, however, require a person or organization looking out for their own selfish interests to teach us that God is the shits, there is no other God but the one they're selling, you are not God, don't even think about anyone else's God, because, much like a middle school girl, God gets jealous and throw fits, I will love you long time if you pick me, etc...

No matter how much a person wants to believe that #1 is true, it simply isn't, and that means they didn't prove that #3 is true either.

If someone really wants to prove that God exists, they can't use circular reasoning, contradictory premises, non-sequitor logic, arguments from ignorance, etc.

This isn't a philosophical argument per se, but this is something that I think is fun to do.

1. Everything that is created by an intelligent being must have a purpose.

then:

1. A created B so that B could do C
2. C was necessary because D
3. Goto 2

Insert God for A and Man for B, or God for A and Earth for B, or God for A and the Universe for B, or God for A and Heaven for B. Enjoy!
(No easy outs. "Because it's God's Will, and nobody can understand God's Will" is not a valid answer, it is an easy out. C'mon, religion was created to provide answers to the things we don't yet understand. Saying I can't understand something in the answer you're providing to the things I don't understand doesn't help.)

When you come to a conclusion where you can say something like "God created man because He was lonely." Then I'll tell you why that doesn't make sense, or it would be an indicator of someone that isn't "All Powerful", or how it causes more problems than the problem it was meant to solve, etc. I expect intelligent people to come up with intelligent solutions. I expect supremely intelligent beings to come up with supremely intelligent solutions.

[trey_phish83]

well put.

its one thing to believe in god and let that make you a better person, but to say that such a thing does exist then prove it with moot logic, is absurd.

i just try to do good and hope others do too. god aint got nothing to do with it.

[Blaubart]

i just try to do good and hope others do too. god aint got nothing to do with it.

...and that's the way it should be.

Do the right things for the right reasons. Not for some promised reward, or the thought that someone is watching.

[Crosshair]

thats kinda forcing your beliefs on someone that god exists.

Not at all. It is no more forcing ones beliefs than forcing quantum physics on someone. If you don't like the conclusion, then all you have to do is deny one of the premises. It's just that by doing so one pays a very high intellectual price. If you want to deny that the universe began to exist or that the universe is finely tuned you are free to do so,just realize that the scientific literature is against such a position.

if santa clause doesn't exist, then presents and xmas trees don't exist.
presents and xmas trees do exist
therefore santa clause is real

That argument is logically invalid because the first premise is demonstratively false.

On the moral argument even most atheist philosophers will agree with that first premise, because without god to serve as an anchor point all morals are simply subjective opinions that vary from society to society. Under such a situation the Holocaust was no more "wrong" than belching at the dinner table. The fact that you think the Holocaust was wrong is just your subjective opinion.

Do the right things for the right reasons. Not for some promised reward, or the thought that someone is watching.

Why? If god does not exist, what is the point of being good? To avoid retribution from your fellow man is one reason, but that just means you don't make public what you are doing. On such a position what would be wrong with raping and murdering if you could get away with it and not be caught? In the end there would be no reward or no punishment either way for benevolence or butchery so why deprive yourself if you have such desires?

its one thing to believe in god and let that make you a better person, but to say that such a thing does exist then prove it with moot logic, is absurd.

How exactly is it moot logic? Which premises do you disagree with? The 3 arguments I presented are presented and debated by the worlds foremost philosophers, they aren't something I made up.

This is going to be a fun thread.

The linked article is BS of course.

Yea, like I saidbefore, I'm skeptical of this. Haven't found Dr. Craig or anyone else bringing this sort of stuff up.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. God began to exist.
3. Therefore, God has a cause.
4. Who or what created God then?

What scientific evidence do you have that god began to exist? I can cite lots of scientific evidence that the universe began to exist.

Oh yeah, God is eternal, all powerful, infinite, and impossible for us to fully comprehend. Is it just me, or does He sound a lot like the universe? I know, let's make up something to explain how God came to be!

Except for the scientific FACT that the universe is NOT eternal. Atheists held to the belief for Milena that the Universe was eternal and did not need a cause.

God doesn't need a cause because he is a being that is necessary to its own nature. Atheists in the past simply held that the Universe was necessary to its own nature and thus eternal, but that now has been shown to be false.

I take exception to numbers 1 and 2. These assumptions do nothing more than show our ignorance on the universe.

Quite contrary, they are the the result of how WELL we understand how the universe works. The Teleological Argument fell into discuse for years until revoved by our increasing understanding of how the universe works. We KNOW that the physical constants and quantities could have taken a wide range of values independently from each other and virtually all of them would result in a universe that could not sustain life.

This reminds me of magicians. The only way that rabbit could have come out of a hat that I just saw was empty, is by chance, necessity or magic. It was not chance or necessity. It must have been magic!

A logically invalid argument because you intentionally exclude a possible explanation, design. The magician designed the arrangement of the rabbit and hat to make it look like the rabbit suddenly appeared in an empty hat.

There are only 3 possibilities listed in the Teleological Argument because those are currently the only 3 possibilities that can possibly explain the fine tuning. If someone comes up with another possible explanation than it would be added to the argument and weighed against the other possibilities.

More unpolished bullshit.

More of your opinion.

Moral values and duties exist because man has learned over time that there are actions which cause pain and suffering to others and eventually to himself. If he is going to reduce his own suffering, then he must convince others to follow these rules.

You misunderstand the question. If god does not exist then OBJECTIVE moral values do not exist. It is certainly possible for SUBJECTIVE moral values and duties to exist without god.

It is also not correct that he has to convince other people to follow a set of subjective rules to reduce their own suffering. Quite the contrary, a man could easily reduce his suffering by increasing the suffering of others. Take a slave society, a minority at the top lives a quite good lifestyle compared to the slaves who have to toil so he can enjoy that lifestyle.

Really, it doesn't require God to teach us that everyone killing each other isn't in our own best interest.

Why not? We could solve the Mideast problem quite easily by simply killing all Arabs. Given our technology that is quite feasible. It was quite advantageous to Stalin to starve 10-20 million Ukrainians to bring that region under his control and send millions more dissidents to the gulags to die. It was quite advantageous for the Conquistadors to slaughter and enslave the Mayans and Aztecs.

If someone really wants to prove that God exists, they can't use circular reasoning, contradictory premises, non-sequitor logic, arguments from ignorance, etc.

You are the one who is guilty of such reasoning, not me, and I doubt that you realize the steep intellectual price you are paying. You do realize that televised debates containing all 3 arguments have taken place and the Atheist opponent either does not address them or addresses them very poorly.

Here you go, a 2 hour debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on gods existence. If you like I can provide links to many more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

[trey_phish83]

crosshair, where's all your published article's of how you think? lol

god wads need a book to tell them the rules,

atheist already know do on to others as you would want done to you.

they should just rename the bible 'life for dummies'

[Blaubart]

Why? If god does not exist, what is the point of being good? To avoid retribution from your fellow man is one reason, but that just means you don't make public what you are doing. On such a position what would be wrong with raping and murdering if you could get away with it and not be caught? In the end there would be no reward or no punishment either way for benevolence or butchery so why deprive yourself if you have such desires?

True, but not for civilized societies. Philosophers came to realize a long time ago that expecting everyone else to live by a certain set of rules while you held yourself to another set, or none at all, was not in the best interest of society as a whole. And if you weren't looking out for the best interest of society as a whole, you weren't looking out for your own best interest in the long run.

God doesn't need a cause because he is a being that is necessary to its own nature.

How convenient. To me, the word "cause" could have a few different meanings. As in create, or have a purpose, or create for a purpose. I always like to ask "Why?" Why does God exist? If he does, then who created Him? Who caused Him to be, and for what purpose?

How exactly is it moot logic? Which premises do you disagree with? The 3 arguments I presented are presented and debated by the worlds foremost philosophers, they aren't something I made up.

Yes, and every one of them have been disproven to the satisfaction of most, except for people of faith. Because, for example, they believe that God is the only authority that could possibly make objective moral values and duties. I say, there is no "ultimate authority", but people of faith aren't willing to accept that, so they aren't willing to accept the valid objections that people have raised to that argument.

We KNOW that the physical constants and quantities could have taken a wide range of values independently from each other and virtually all of them would result in a universe that could not sustain life.

Correction - Could not have sustained life as we know it. The range of values such as the balance of elements on Earth, the proximity and mass of our moon, our distance from our sun, and all the other factors that have to have been just right for life to come about on Earth are all taken into consideration when calculating how many other planets out there could sustain life.

The argument about gravity being stronger or weaker than it is, or the properties of atoms being just right are pointless, because that isn't how they are. I don't know that they could be any other way. If there is, who knows what sorts of matter didn't come into existence because their properties weren't just so.

I don't claim to know everything, or that scientists know everything. I know that as we continue to learn, we disprove things that have been said to be the word of God.

A logically invalid argument because you intentionally exclude a possible explanation, design. The magician designed the arrangement of the rabbit and hat to make it look like the rabbit suddenly appeared in an empty hat.

No, I purposefully substituted magic in place of design, because that's what attibuting the design of the universe to God is. It is simply a way of exploiting people based upon what we don't understand. Some people call it magic, some people call it work of God. Why else has the Catholic church held so firmly to some beliefs that have been proven wrong time and time again? Then, only when it seems silly to continue holding on to that belief, they reverse their stance, and that becomes the official stance of the Catholic church. I mean, c'mon, these were the OBJECTIVE words of God, were they not? There was no doubt about it. Well, until there was that is.

There's also a fourth option that was conveniently ommitted from the premise. That we don't know.

You misunderstand the question. If god does not exist then OBJECTIVE moral values do not exist. It is certainly possible for SUBJECTIVE moral values and duties to exist without god.

So, a man says that God says this is right or wrong and it becomes "OBJECTIVE". Any other source is not an "OBJECTIVE" source? Compared to a man that realizes that hurting other people is bad because it causes pain and suffering, and that is something that nobody wants. What's the difference?

Prove to me that God exists and that He is the supreme authority on all moral issues, then MAYBE I'll agree that they are OBJECTIVE moral values. Until then, I'll treat them the same way any other moral rule, as coming from man.

One could argue that governments put OBJECTIVE moral values and duties in place in the form of laws. Governments might not be the "Supreme Authority", but they do put in place laws, which some people say are the minimum moral standards that people should hold themselves to. Mimimum or not, they are still "OBJECTIVE". That would be yet another reason that number one is false.

One could say that yes, people wrote down these moral values and duties and attributed them to the word of God. So, if one follows the moral argument's premises and conclusion, yes, we could say these objective moral values and duties exist, and as a result, God exists. But I'd say He doesn't exist in any other place than where you might find fear, hate or love. That is, He exists as a construct of man, in our minds.

Why not? We could solve the Mideast problem quite easily by simply killing all Arabs. Given our technology that is quite feasible. It was quite advantageous to Stalin to starve 10-20 million Ukrainians to bring that region under his control and send millions more dissidents to the gulags to die. It was quite advantageous for the Conquistadors to slaughter and enslave the Mayans and Aztecs.

As I mentioned above, these are not the things that civilized societies do. IMO, they are the things that religious societies do.

You are the one who is guilty of such reasoning, not me, and I doubt that you realize the steep intellectual price you are paying.

You do realize that every one of those logical errors was used in one place or another in those four arguments.

[TROOPER]

This reminds me of "edteach" to some degree. The similarity is that arguments and similies are being drawn to support a foregone assumption, and not to discover an independent truth. This is inductive thinking with a specific goal in mind versus deductive with an intent to 'nail down' the source - whatever that may be - under the final unturned cup.

You can go back and forth all you want, but you'll never use logic to overcome the emotion, nor vice-versa.

Much like "The Terminator" (the first one), the story, myth, or psychosis displayed by "Reese" (from the future) was very neatly tied-up; there is no loose end in which to start an unravel of a true-believer's faith, because Christianity (and probably other faiths) at their most well-developed, have a clever answer for any "it", whatever "it" may be.



Of course, we could also revert to the draft in this country, but then you get a fighting force of people who may not want to be there.

[Ben B.]

... arguments and similies are being drawn to support a foregone assumption, and not to discover an independent truth....

Exactly. It is equally interesting (or boring) to consider equations that indicate the likelihood of life, or intelligent life, on other planets. All the critical elements needed are unknown, and adherents ot one view or another try to dance around that knowledge deficit.

[Blaubart]

You can go back and forth all you want, but you'll never use logic to overcome the emotion, nor vice-versa.

It's about the journey, not the destination. I don't care how this discussion ends, it's just plain fun.

[Selectedmarksman]

Let the fallacies begin:

Kalam Cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

As scientists and mathematicians are unsure what happened approaching the Big Bang, we cannot be certain that the process of expansion and implosion of our universe isn't cyclic. Also, we are not certain our universe is the only universe. Point being, it is not safe to assume that either our universe had a beginning or that all potential universes/existence had a beginning. So, this is flawed.

Teleological Argument

1. The fine tuning found in the physical constants and quantities of the universe is either due to chance, necessity, or design.
2. It is not due to chance or necessity.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

How the hell are chance and necessity just dismissed out of hand? This is even weaker than the first one.

Moral Argument

1. If god does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore god exists.

Again, proof of objective moral values? Further, there are plenty of values that are reversed in the Bible, so clearly Biblical values are not constant and objective. It is also possible, if you want to go there, for 'objective' values to exist without a deity. For example, it is 'immoral' for one piranha to eat another. If this weren't taboo, feeding in schools would lead to destruction of schools, thus removing those individuals from the evolutionary tree. This is related to the idea of there being certain evolutionary allegories to the persistence of ideas or behavior, or Memes.

[CallMeShooter]

Disprove one single verse in the Christian Bible.

[Selectedmarksman]

Disprove one single verse in the Christian Bible.

Seriously? Ok. How did Judas die?

[trey_phish83]

Disprove one single verse in the Christian Bible.

lol six posts and this guys being sarcastic....

[Blaubart]

How the hell are chance and necessity just dismissed out of hand?

Exactly.

You can't sell religion by saying "We have MOST of the answers."

In this example, since we don't yet fully comprehend the universe, I think it's safe to tuck it into the category of "Unknown" until we do. But since religion doesn't want to admit that it doesn't know, it MUST go into chance, necessity or design. Since they don't fully understand how it could fit into chance or necessity, then it MUST go into design. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite willing to dismiss chance or necessity just yet.

[CallMeShooter]

SelectedMarksman, there were many people named Judas in the Christian Bible, which one in particular are you referring to? I am assuming you are referring to Judas Iscariot, NIV Acts 1:18. "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

I believe God made man to where men are not able to comprehend everything, so you have to take the rest on faith and faith alone.

My earlier post had no sarcasm in it. I was just giving you some food for thought.

And what does post count have to do with intelligence or anything for that matter?

trey_phish83, pm your home address. I will send you a Bible and a gift to help with some of your expenses.

[trey_phish83]

shooter,

i have two bibles, pointman's and a ryrie study.

i've read them thoroughly and am convinced they are only stories.

i go to church, christian church. i only go to support my friends that go. i have no faith that their is a afterlife, heaven or hell. i do good because its my obligation as a human to do good.

i pointed out your post count only for the reason that you don't have much to say, but one of 6 things you said was on this topic of man and god. its something that makes you go 'hmmmm'

the gift of god will not pay my taxes.

[CallMeShooter]

Trey, you are correct that I don't have much to say; I try to stay in my lane.

My offer still stands.

[Selectedmarksman]

SelectedMarksman, there were many people named Judas in the Christian Bible, which one in particular are you referring to? I am assuming you are referring to Judas Iscariot, NIV Acts 1:18. "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled.

Yes, I think it safe to assume I meant Iscariot. I'm glad you did your homework.

Now go read matthew 27:3-8. Both recount how Judas died, but the verses contradict eachother. Moreover, these are non-trivial verses. In one, he isa greedy, evil man struck down by God in an act of divine vengence. In the other, he is overwhelmed with guilt and hangs himself, with no divine intervention.

Whether what Judas did was a mattewr of free will or inevitable is a matter of debate for Biblical scholars. The answer has a huge impact on the signifigance of Jesus' death. Also, the verse you choose to believe impacts the nature of th God you believe in.

So, in short, Ido not have to disprove any verse in the bible, it disproves itself through contradictory reports of the same events. This is not the only example but it is my favorite as it is so importent yet so unknown by those who hold these texts as sacred.

[ick]

There is no discrepancy in the accounts of the death of Judas.

From Albert Barnes:

Matthew 27:5

And went and hanged himself - The word used in the original, here, has given rise to much discussion, whether it means that he was suffocated or strangled by his great grief, or whether he took his life by suspending himself. It is acknowledged on all hands, however, that the latter is its most usual meaning, and it is certainly the most obvious meaning. Peter says, in giving an account of the death of Jesus Acts 1:18, that Judas, “falling headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” There has been supposed to be some difficulty in reconciling these two accounts, but there is really no necessary difference. Both accounts are true. Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result. Judas probably passed out of the temple in great haste and perturbation of mind. He sought a place where he might perpetrate this crime.

He would not, probably, be very careful about the fitness or the means he used. In his anguish, his haste, his desire to die, he seized upon a rope and suspended himself; and it is not at all remarkable, or indeed unusual, that the rope might prove too weak and break. Falling headlong - that is, on his face - he burst asunder, and in awful horrors died - a double death, with double pains and double horrors - the reward of his aggravated guilt. The explanation here suggested will be rendered more probable if it be supposed that he hung himself near some precipitous valley. “Interpreters have suggested,” says Professor Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, pp. 275, 276), “that Judas may have hung himself on a tree near a precipice over the valley of Hinnom, and that, the limb or rope breaking, he fell to the bottom, and was dashed to pieces by the fall. For myself, I felt, as I stood in this valley and looked up to the rocky terraces which hang over it, that the proposed explanation was a perfectly natural one. I was more than ever satisfied with it. I measured the precipitous, almost perpendicular walls in different places, and found the height to be, variously, 40, 36, 33, 30, and 25 feet. Trees still grow quite near the edge of these rocks, and, no doubt, in former times were still more numerous in the same place. A rocky pavement exists, also, at the bottom of the ledges, and hence on that account, too, a person who should fall from above would be liable to be crushed and mangled as well as killed. The traitor may have struck, in his fall, upon some pointed rock, which entered the body and caused ‘his bowels to gush out.’”

[Selectedmarksman]

First off, what's the source for that quote (is it published? Where?)?

Second, that quote claims that one author wrote of Judas hanging himself but neglected to mention or explain how he spontaneously disemboweled. The quote that your quote quotes claims Judas hung himself over an edge and the rope broke, leading him to fall and rupture himself on some distant land below. Let's go back to the verse, shall we? "With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." This verse states he fell in the field. It also makes no mention of him hanging himself. This would be a powerfully curious omission. Also, do you not think this guy's explanation forces you to assume one hell of a lot that was left out to try to make this square peg fit a round hole? Occam's Razor.

Third, I'm familiar with many attempts to explain this discrepancy and this is one of the weakest. I've already shown that it is absurd to claim one biblical author felt it unnecessary to mention Judas hung himself and the other failed to mention his bowels exploded. Let's pretend that did happen and that it does explain the difference. What, then, did Judas do with his silver? In Acts, he buys the field. In Matthew, he throws it into the temple. In Acts, he is a wicked man enjoying the fruits of his betrayal. In Matthew, he is overwrought with guilt for his actions and takes his own life. This is a clear and direct contradiction. Once again, lest we consider this trivial, we see that these are two very, very different images of Judas Iscariot we are given. While often neglected, or glossed over, Judas Iscariot played a crucial role in the life of Jesus and the foundation of Christianity. His character, freedom of action, and thoughts/feelings after his betrayal have much larger implications than a mere disagreement between verses.

Finally, I'm not saying that someone's beliefs are entirely wrong because these two passages are contradictory. However, they are contradictory. This should only challenge someone's faith if they believe every word of the Bible is literally true. If that is the case, we have larger problems than discussing the fate of Judas Iscariot.