Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
Richard Dawkins lays out a 7 point scale between total belief (1) and total unbelief (7). They system allows for different degrees of belief/agnosticism. Since it's impossible to prove a negative, Dawkins will often describe himself as a 6.5 on this 7 point scale. So although he's technically an agnostic, he's functionally an atheist.
Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
Some how I simply could never believe in anything I could not see, touch, or feel. Even as a young child, I used to ask "why" or "how" much more than my elders appreciated.
Some how I simply could never believe in anything I could not see, touch, or feel. Even as a young child, I used to ask "why" or "how" much more than my elders appreciated.
At the age of six I frequently corrected my Sunday School teachers when they were telling us something that was patently untrue. They didn't appreciate facts coming from a little kid.
In 2'nd grade I got a staff infection in one ear and had to avoid any contact with cold air. I spent recess all winter in the classroom reading encyclopedias.
Then I would go home each day and challenge my Mom to answer questions about that which I had read that day. Mom got more than a bit frustrated with me at times.
That probably had great influence on my later perspectives.
Contrary to the typical Atheist, you will never see or hear me criticize another for his/her faith. I have great respect for those who hold their faith dear and honor it.
I am sometimes envious. It would be nice, at times, to believe there was someone out there who could solve all of my, or even the world's problems.
But alas, I can not, without evidence. And we all know evidence is completely contrary to faith.
Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
What a man believes has no effect on reality. Anybody can type his beliefs on a forum but does that make what he types the truth?
What about people who were healed of various sicknesses or diseases? I know a woman who suffered for fibro mialga for 7 years after a car wreck. She was instantly healed at a revival in florida. I know her personally and seen the pain she was in for years then I saw her lead a regular life after her experience.
Heres my take on it. You don't know $hit, I don't know $hit, nobody else on the fire really knows $hit, scientists don't know $hit, our leaders don't know $hit and all the smart people who think they know everything really don't know $hit. The more things people present as fact the more stupid they make themselves look. So keep on pushing your agenda like the homos and liberals, cause everybody knows they make themselves look so wise.
Well maybe that was a bit harsh, my apologies. Just seemed at first you were taking a jab at people of faith. But only the last line, I still think none of use knows $hit.
Then there is me, I believe in God, I don't believe in some afterlife, or that He watches and knows everything we think/do. Not much of a believer in the Bible being anything but man made.
I also don't believe in the devil, demons, ghosts etc etc.
That said, I also know I don't know everything and that most anything is possible, with the exception of never having to pay taxes.
So keep on pushing your agenda like the homos and liberals, cause everybody knows they make themselves look so wise.
But that's just it. I do not have an agenda. I will not criticize your religion. If you take comfort from your beliefs, GREAT. I am glad for you.
This is simply discussion for the sake of enlightenment concerning the thoughts of others.
Yet, you've already be tied to gays and Obama, gun grabbers and Harry Reid....because you disagree on this one proposition you MUST be a liberal commie.
Yet, you've already be tied to gays and Obama, gun grabbers and Harry Reid....because you disagree on this one proposition you MUST be a liberal commie.
Oh my gosh, I hope my wife of 31 + years does not find out about the Gay part. Tomorrow is Sunday and I might miss my weekly chance to call out to God.
I used to know for a fact all manner of things that latter turned out to be false. Therefore, I'm kinda with Seal Billy on this- no one really knows $hit,we all believe things for reasons that may only make sense to us. As long as someone doesn't believe they have the right to harm me, I don't really care.
I do believe in God, although what I believe about God changes pretty regularly. I don't believe I or anyone else understands a whole lot about God, not to the point where I feel comfortable telling people what he wants, or letting them tell me at least. Maybe someday it'll all make sense, maybe not.
One is humble & intellectually honest enough to admit he may be wrong. The other defied logic by stating that a negative can be proven as fact.
This first answer pretty well covered it. In the follow-up, Richard Dawkins is held up as an example of just enough intellectual honesty to realize atheism is only a belief. I once heard a man with four earned doctoral degrees (history, philosophy, theology, and education) say "The agnostic says 'I don't know if there's a God.' The atheist says, 'I don't believe there is a God and you can't either.'" The distinction is one of humility.
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
I am sometimes envious. It would be nice, at times, to believe there was someone out there who could solve all of my, or even the world's problems.
But alas, I can not, without evidence. And we all know evidence is completely contrary to faith.
What if someone is out there (and here as well) who can solve all of the world's problems. He has both the desire and the means to do it, but he will do it on his terms and his timing? To insist he do it on my terms of wisdom, justice, righteousness and love is to make him in my image. Just asking.
With regard to the sentence I made bold above, I guess I would say I'm one who does not know that evidence is completely contrary to faith. There are plenty of cases where evidence wrongly convicted people in court -- proof that we do not necessarily interpret evidence correctly.
However, I am not saying faith needs evidence. Faith itself is, in a sense, evidence. But if all we do is depend on evidence, we are abandoning faith.
However, I am not saying faith needs evidence. Faith itself is, in a sense, evidence. But if all we do is depend on evidence, we are abandoning faith.
No, faith is a believe contrary to, or despite the lack of evidence. So by definition, deferring to evidence is an abandonment of an unsupported or contrary position.
No, faith is a believe contrary to, or despite the lack of evidence. So by definition, deferring to evidence is an abandonment of an unsupported or contrary position.
That is your faith position. I became a creationist because of the evidence and a Christian because that�s where intelligent faith lead.
As an agnostic I am certain of two things, the existence of God, and the inability of human religions to understand his will.
Two thoughts: 1. Agnosticism, by definition, lacks certainty. Therefore when an agnostic becomes certain of the existence of God, he is no longer an agnostic. He may, however, be a believer in God and be agnostic about the truth of a particular religion.
2. Key phrase: "human religions." If there is one that isn't human, but divinely revealed, then it is possible for some people, at least to a degree, to understand God's will because God has revealed it.
However, I am not saying faith needs evidence. Faith itself is, in a sense, evidence. But if all we do is depend on evidence, we are abandoning faith.
No, faith is a believe contrary to, or despite the lack of evidence. So by definition, deferring to evidence is an abandonment of an unsupported or contrary position.
Overruled. One without faith will define faith to support his hostile position toward faith.
I believe in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
It tells me I have some self evident truths bestowed upon me by our Creator.
One of these rights granted by God is the Second Amendment. I like guns, so I'm pretty happy some commie statist can't just nullify what God has given me. Unless of course I just call it all malarkey and wait or vote to be told what to do......
No, faith is a believe contrary to, or despite the lack of evidence. So by definition, deferring to evidence is an abandonment of an unsupported or contrary position.
That is your faith position. I became a creationist because of the evidence and a Christian because that�s where intelligent faith lead.
With all due respect my friend, if I remember the story correctly (and are not confusing you with someone else, please correct me if I am) your conversion had something to do with a very pretty girl.
However, I am not saying faith needs evidence. Faith itself is, in a sense, evidence. But if all we do is depend on evidence, we are abandoning faith.
No, faith is a believe contrary to, or despite the lack of evidence. So by definition, deferring to evidence is an abandonment of an unsupported or contrary position.
Overruled. One without faith will define faith to support his hostile position toward faith.
A. Any educated person knows that dictionary definitions don't take us very far, though they are generally a starting point. B. No one has said he can prove the existence of God, or that Christianity is true. C. I can arrive at belief in God without proof, and you can arrive at unbelief in God without proof. Same level of faith. D. That equanimity (in "C") is evidence of a heart of faith that is trying to be a good heart.
A. Any educated person knows that dictionary definitions don't take us very far, though they are generally a starting point. B. No one has said he can prove the existence of God, or that Christianity is true. C. I can arrive at belief in God without proof, and you can arrive at unbelief in God without proof. Same level of faith. D. That equanimity (in "C")is evidence of a heart of faith that is trying to be a good heart.
Steve.
Not at all. If there is not evidence, and I do not develop a view contrary to that lack of evidence, I have not adopted a position on faith. Consequently our positions are not intellectually equal.
A. Any educated person knows that dictionary definitions don't take us very far, though they are generally a starting point. B. No one has said he can prove the existence of God, or that Christianity is true. C. I can arrive at belief in God without proof, and you can arrive at unbelief in God without proof. Same level of faith. D. That equanimity (in "C")is evidence of a heart of faith that is trying to be a good heart.
Steve.
Not at all. If there is not evidence, and I do not develop a view contrary to that lack of evidence, I have not adopted a position on faith. Consequently our positions are not intellectually equal.
Wrong again. I can choose to believe fire is not hot. If I never get close enough to experience evidence that it is hot, I can claim I am correct because I have no evidence that it is hot. Sometimes, not always, the position we start from is what leads us to our conclusion.
With all due respect my friend, if I remember the story correctly (and are not confusing you with someone else, please correct me if I am) your conversion had something to do with a very pretty girl.
When I was sixteen I fell in love with my girlfriend who became my wife of fifty years. When I was about twenty-five someone showed me an article by an evolutionist which contradicted another evolutionist. The first had the facts the second did not. I was crushed because I was an atheistic evolutionist. I was so devastated I consulted a psychiatrist. I began to read creationist material and concluded it required considerably less faith to accept that than continue defending an un-defendable philosophical position. It took only a few years and I became a Christian.
I hope that clears up the pretty girl thing. By the way Sue was so pretty my friends used to ask, �How did you get such a good looking girl?� I guess I was good at sweet talk back then.
With all due respect my friend, if I remember the story correctly (and are not confusing you with someone else, please correct me if I am) your conversion had something to do with a very pretty girl.
When I was sixteen I fell in love with my girlfriend who became my wife of fifty years. When I was about twenty-five someone showed me an article by an evolutionist which contradicted another evolutionist. The first had the facts the second did not. I was crushed because I was an atheistic evolutionist. I was so devastated I consulted a psychiatrist. I began to read creationist material and concluded it required considerably less faith to accept that than continue defending an un-defendable philosophical position. It took only a few years and I became a Christian.
I hope that clears up the pretty girl thing. By the way Sue was so pretty my friends used to ask, �How did you get such a good looking girl?� I guess I was good at sweet talk back then.
I know there was a couple of pretty girls involved someplace.
I find faith to be a bit confusing. Not faith itself, exactly, but why it is perceived as such a desirable trait. Why is it so noble and laudable to have faith? In almost all other area's of life, we encourage critical thinking and rationale, but when it comes to religion it's suddenly preferable to have faith. We see even here on this forum that many consider those who have faith to be superior to those who do not. Why is that? What makes it such a desirable characteristic to be able to believe very strongly in something you can't prove one way or the other? I'm not in any way trying to put down people who have faith, it simply something that I can't quite get a grasp on. If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
I find faith to be a bit confusing. Not faith itself, exactly, but why it is perceived as such a desirable trait. Why is it so noble and laudable to have faith? In almost all other area's of life, we encourage critical thinking and rationale, but when it comes to religion it's suddenly preferable to have faith. We see even here on this forum that many consider those who have faith to be superior to those who do not. Why is that? What makes it such a desirable characteristic to be able to believe very strongly in something you can't prove one way or the other? I'm not in any way trying to put down people who have faith, it simply something that I can't quite get a grasp on. If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
xxclaro; Good evening to you sir, I hope this finds you and yours doing OK this muggy summer Saturday night.
I've got to say that even when I came to a place where I had faith in a Supreme Being, it didn't mean for me that I had some sort of total clarity on my life's path from there forward.
Most days it's all I can do to keep it between the ditches if that makes any sense?
A large part of the reason for my faith is that I was exposed to circumstances for which there were then and remain now no scientific explanation. Some of the incident occurred when I was alone, so one could make the case that I'm not remembering the facts clearly, am overstating what I experienced or even that am flat out lying.
The other side of it, thinking critically on my part and please understand that I'm a born skeptic, is that there exists things in this life that are beyond my direct knowledge and comprehension. If I go down that path - via faith now because I don't have the answers as to how these events took place - then I've had to come to grips with what I was going to do with that information.
Faith - say in this instance in a Creator, but it could be in people too - seems to come easier for some folks than for others and I'd be lying if I said that makes sense or seems "fair" to me.
Personally speaking, a very big part of my faith in how I got here and what I'm hopefully supposed to be doing while on this ride - is that we're all created equally as humans - so I'm no better or worse than any other human. My late father used to say "To God all souls weigh the same."
Lastly, there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding that all those who have the faith we've been discussing suddenly loose the ability to reason or critically think.
It would seem to me that generalities about either camp are illogical and inaccurate at best, so again speaking personally I try to avoid them when it comes to these topics.
Again hopefully that made some sense sir and again too, all the best to you folks for the rest of this weekend.
Thanks Dwayne, and as usual thats a good, honest answer. I understand what your saying, and I believe we all have a certain amount of faith, in various things. I know I believe in things I cannot prove, and probably believe things now that I'll later find out aren't so. I just hope that I can always keep a clear and open mind to find truth, where ever and whatever it may be. I guess I've always had a fear of deception,and believing things that aren't true. I can understand faith, and various reasons why people have it, like yourself. I just ponder sometimes when or why it became such an important part of religion, and why such value is placed on it. I'm not that well versed in other religions, but in Christianity it considered essential part being a Christian. It just makes me wonder why? I can understand almost all the rest of it, doing unto others and treating people right and all that. That makes perfect sense to me, I just wonder why faith is such a vital piece of the puzzle. I'm not saying its wrong or anything, its jsut one of those things that rattles aroun in my brain. In any case, thanks for your thoughts and I hope you have a pleasant remainder of your weekend.
I just wonder why faith is such a vital piece of the puzzle.
It's simple. The more you study, there less evidence there is, and when the priest/pastor runs out of answer, it's the final card upon with they can fall back onto.
If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
That is certainly the way it was used in the Churches I have attended.
He who is without faith....is akin to a racial slur. It denotes someone other than a "right thinking person"
The integrity of the church seemed to depend on the body segregating its self from those without faith.
Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists. The concede there is no way to know (agnostic=without knowledge) but figure the available evidence indicates there are no gods. I suppose there are agnostic theists as well. I think of it like unicorns. There's no evidence they exist and therefore no reason to believe they do although it is possible someone may stumble out of the jungle one day with one.
In order to state categorically and absolutely "there is no God" one must know for sure He's not sitting on some rock on the back side of Jupiter's 3rd moon. In fact, to make the claim "there is no God" one would have to be able to make an exhaustive list of everything that exists in the cosmos and show god is not one of those items. That, of course, would mean the person making the statement and the list is All-Knowing, and, therefore, God himself. It is a basic axiom of logic that one cannot deny his own existence.
The statement "there is no God" is therefore self-defeating, and logically impossible.
One may say he is 99.9% sure god doesn't exist, or he hasn't seen evidence or he is unsure. (agnostic) But, no one can ever truly make the absolute statement "there is no god" (atheist)
personal experiences do indeed play a very big role in our perception of faith of a Creator as Dwayne stated so well.
I feel fortunate to have heard some of Dwayne's basis for his personal faith
my life experiences and perceptions leads me to feel strongly there's a higher power
but I've no qualms about those that don't feel the same way.
I know good men that have no faith in a higher power.
and I'm aware of men that are borderline evil (if in fact not crossing the line) that use the faith of others in a higher power and faith in themselves as a predatory opportunity
There's no way for any of us to convince one another which is correct.
Often wonder why those at both extremes expend so much energy doing so.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Man in his current limited knowledge, can move all the knowledge from one computer to another with a simple chip, thus having a new entity with the same knowledge as the old. Similar to having a soul transferred to heaven, maybe, since we can send this same knowledge through the air from place to place. Who am I to say that there is not a being out there somewhere that knows more and can do more. miles
All I know is a pray to God I'm not around should the day come that absolute proof shows that Christ or Heaven doesn't exist.
It will be UGLY, because I've met too damn many people that apparently the only reason to not do bad is the hope to get their heaven card punched. If that 'hope' is gone, there will be a bunch of 'Christians' raping/killing etc the countryside.
Dictionary.com Faith: belief that is not based on proof:
If, for some reason, you think that such a definition proves, or even hints, that faith is contrary to fact, you appear to be a very shallow thinker. Even the definition you offer there shows nothing that rules out the co-existence and mutual support of the two.
All I know is a pray to God I'm not around should the day come that absolute proof shows that Christ or Heaven doesn't exist. It will be UGLY, because I've met too damn many people that apparently the only reason to not do bad is the hope to get their heaven card punched. If that 'hope' is gone, there will be a bunch of 'Christians' raping/killing etc the countryside.
Interesting observations/statements and a predicition not simple either to argue, or support. However, the middle sentence reveals what would appear to be a devilish conflict for those described.
Avoiding bad acts, even trying to accomplish good ones, is not the Scriptural basis for admittance to Heaven. And the fundament of that key term "hope" has no Scriptural relevance to bad/good acts.
With regard to the Scriptural basis for Christianity, it would appear that the faithful have no doubt/concern about "the day come" and, on that day, those without faith will be beyond concern about subsequent events, no matter how interestingly speculative here.
I find faith to be a bit confusing. Not faith itself, exactly, but why it is perceived as such a desirable trait. Why is it so noble and laudable to have faith? In almost all other area's of life, we encourage critical thinking and rationale, but when it comes to religion it's suddenly preferable to have faith. We see even here on this forum that many consider those who have faith to be superior to those who do not. Why is that? What makes it such a desirable characteristic to be able to believe very strongly in something you can't prove one way or the other? I'm not in any way trying to put down people who have faith, it simply something that I can't quite get a grasp on. If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
I think the confusion (not yours specifically, but in general) comes from different uses of the word faith.
One side defines faith as a belief with no knowledge. The other side defines it as belief with incomplete knowledge.
When one gains a witness through the holy ghost, he has evidence that there is a God. He doesn't have a perfect knowledge of everything that God is, has done, or will ever do. He must accept that on faith.
Many will claim that this doesn't constitute "evidence", but anyone who has felt the holy ghost knows that it is real. It can't be replicated for others, but must be experienced individually.
Unfortunately, there are some who prey on those having faith, and manipulate their incomplete understanding for personal gain. This seems to be a stumbling block for others. But it doesn't change the the fact that for me, the conversion of the holy ghost is as real as any experiment conducted in a lab.
but otoh a casual stroll of this planet for 50 some odd years has proved a few things to me
there's good men, very good men with a complete lack of faith in a higher power.
but I've witnessed personally far more many great men (or read about them) that conduct themselves based on a deep and abiding faith in a higher power.
our Founding Fathers that recognized our God given rights (I've yet to see many folks on the planet that have impressed me more with their collective intellect.
and after them lots of folks throughout the history of this nation and across the world that have accomplished great things and at least part of their ability to do so based upon their deep and abiding faith in their God.
just too much evidence out there for me to ignore that most likely there's something bigger going on, than just a bunch of bacteria that formed out of the water and developed this thing we call a conscience.
As an agnostic I am certain of two things, the existence of God, and the inability of human religions to understand his will.
Two thoughts: 1. Agnosticism, by definition, lacks certainty. Therefore when an agnostic becomes certain of the existence of God, he is no longer an agnostic. He may, however, be a believer in God and be agnostic about the truth of a particular religion.
2. Key phrase: "human religions." If there is one that isn't human, but divinely revealed, then it is possible for some people, at least to a degree, to understand God's will because God has revealed it.
Steve.
Sophistry is a poor substitute for knowledge. The definition you want to use is a poor one for the Faith I feel. That definition came from critics of the Agnostic belief, so it is designed to ridicule us. As for God giving us one true religion, well all of you believe yours is thatone true religion, it is as likely that all of you are wrong as it is that one of you is right.
my view on the agnostics, and I might be one? is that the outcome could go either way.
that is, if we reach a certain level of spiritual attainment, we'll arise as a group, or collective, to embrace the Return of the Bird Tribes in the sky.
on the other hand, ;), if we utterly fail, while trying our best to succeed, God, YHWH, Jesus, Buddha, etc. will swoop down and save us all from certain calamity.
I mean, if we're going to have a God, they have to pay their own way, don't they?
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
I decided as a young man that admitting we do not know what is beyond our ability to know is the only honest answer.
Those who swear that there is no God cannot know that. Plenty of circumstantial evidence that ain't nobody in control. That only proves that we do not understand what in the hell is going on.
Those who swear on their particular stack of bibles that there is a God and they have the Word of God cannot know that. Plenty of circumstantial evidence that there is much good in the world to counter balance all the bad. But no Proof, just Faith.
I found the Bible to be the Good Book to live by, but not the Perfect Book without error.
Seems this thread has devolved and is no longer about agnostics and atheists. OK.
Here is my view. Faith is a gift from God. If you are a non-believer, this will be seen as nonsense by you. However, it is not.
Further, once that faith has been given, faith becomes the substance , (one might see "substance" as the inner witness of truth.) of things hoped for and for enlightenment of the truth. Read Holy Spirit for the Christians out there.
So, without faith, it can be said that one cannot understand the things of God.
But, don't give up. God will freely give to those who seek.
Want to be sure of not finding? Then don't seek. You will not find.
I offer an analogy. Let's suppose I have traveled to some faraway place and have eaten some exotic dish not found in your home country. I can try to explain how it tastes. I have tasted it but you have not. So, when someone denies that the exotic dish tastes the way I describe, I see them as not accepting my testimony and wonder why they reject it. Further when they tell me that I did not eat of it and I am lying about the exotic dish, I see them as lost in their ignorance and lost in their own world.
In order to state categorically and absolutely "there is no God" one must know for sure He's not sitting on some rock on the back side of Jupiter's 3rd moon. In fact, to make the claim "there is no God" one would have to be able to make an exhaustive list of everything that exists in the cosmos and show god is not one of those items. That, of course, would mean the person making the statement and the list is All-Knowing, and, therefore, God himself. It is a basic axiom of logic that one cannot deny his own existence.
The statement "there is no God" is therefore self-defeating, and logically impossible.
One may say he is 99.9% sure god doesn't exist, or he hasn't seen evidence or he is unsure. (agnostic) But, no one can ever truly make the absolute statement "there is no god" (atheist)
Pepe, welcome to the Forum and philosophical/religious discussion.
Actually Pepe, the world is full of Athiest. Virtually everyone on this forum is an Atheist. Many functional atheist admit that logically it's impossible to prove a negative. However, if you can change the negative to a question of fact, a religion can be disproven.
Let me give you an example. According to the ancient Greek religions, the Gods lived atop Mount Olympus. Men have visited the top of Mount Olympus and there were no Gods to be found. Having disproven this foundational element of the Greek religions, we can say with 100% certainty their god do not exist and relegate this religion to the status of Myth.
The same can be said for the Aztec religion that required human blood sacrifices to insure the sun would continue to rise. Their murder shrines remain idle for centuries, yet the sun continues to rise. In addition, with Newton and Einsteins explanations of gravity, the true force behind the sunrise we can with 100% certainty dismiss this religion as false, and relegate it to the status of Myth.
Likewise, we can apply the same level of scrutiny to the Bible and various Christian interperations of it. As an example EVERYONE one this site is an an Atheist in their beliefs of the Millerite sect. The Millerite predicted Armageddon would occur in 1849. Since Armageddon didn't occur in 1849, once again, we can unequivocally say they were wrong.
We can extend this same type of analysis to the idea's that the Christian God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, and that the Bible is the perfect word of God. All knowing doesn't survive Genesis, all loving doesn't survive Exodus, and as for all powerful and perfect word, well, those do not survive the conflicting genealogies of Jesus and the inability of the gospels to agree upon how many of what and at what time were present at the opening of Jesus's tomb. The inability for him to bring consensus on even these simple points once again demonstrates God is neither all powerful, nor is the test perfect.
As a result of the Biblical text failing the reading against itself, it too can be relegated to the category of Myth.
Dictionary.com Faith: belief that is not based on proof:
If, for some reason, you think that such a definition proves, or even hints, that faith is contrary to fact, you appear to be a very shallow thinker. Even the definition you offer there shows nothing that rules out the co-existence and mutual support of the two.
If your beliefs are consistent with the evidence, there is no need for faith.
Seems this thread has devolved and is no longer about agnostics and atheists. OK.
Here is my view. Faith is a gift from God. If you are a non-believer, this will be seen as nonsense by you. However, it is not.
Further, once that faith has been given, faith becomes the substance , (one might see "substance" as the inner witness of truth.) of things hoped for and for enlightenment of the truth. Read Holy Spirit for the Christians out there.
So, without faith, it can be said that one cannot understand the things of God.
But, don't give up. God will freely give to those who seek.
Want to be sure of not finding? Then don't seek. You will not find.
I offer an analogy. Let's suppose I have traveled to some faraway place and have eaten some exotic dish not found in your home country. I can try to explain how it tastes. I have tasted it but you have not. So, when someone denies that the exotic dish tastes the way I describe, I see them as not accepting my testimony and wonder why they reject it. Further when they tell me that I did not eat of it and I am lying about the exotic dish, I see them as lost in their ignorance and lost in their own world.
TF
Here's where your example falls apart. When you describe your exotic dish to me we can discuss it's ingredients. We can see if they exist. Heck, I can probably find all the ingredients in Denver. I could see the restaurant on Google street-view, and if you were in Boston, eating with Leighton and his lovely bride there will probably be pictures of your exotic dish posted right here on The Fire.
In other words, unlike your faith, there would be evidence for your exotic dish.
Seems this thread has devolved and is no longer about agnostics and atheists. OK.
Here is my view. Faith is a gift from God. If you are a non-believer, this will be seen as nonsense by you. However, it is not.
Further, once that faith has been given, faith becomes the substance , (one might see "substance" as the inner witness of truth.) of things hoped for and for enlightenment of the truth. Read Holy Spirit for the Christians out there.
So, without faith, it can be said that one cannot understand the things of God.
But, don't give up. God will freely give to those who seek.
Want to be sure of not finding? Then don't seek. You will not find.
I offer an analogy. Let's suppose I have traveled to some faraway place and have eaten some exotic dish not found in your home country. I can try to explain how it tastes. I have tasted it but you have not. So, when someone denies that the exotic dish tastes the way I describe, I see them as not accepting my testimony and wonder why they reject it. Further when they tell me that I did not eat of it and I am lying about the exotic dish, I see them as lost in their ignorance and lost in their own world.
TF
Here's where your example falls apart. When you describe your exotic dish to me we can discuss it's ingredients. We can see if they exist. Heck, I can probably find all the ingredients in Denver. I could see the restaurant on Google street-view, and if you were in Boston, eating with Leighton and his lovely bride there will probably be pictures of your exotic dish posted right here on The Fire.
In other words, unlike your faith, there would be evidence for your exotic dish.
Well, you missed the point about testimony and the expressing of non-belief of what is known by me to be true.
You are also re-stating my narrative to suit your comments.
Seems this thread has devolved and is no longer about agnostics and atheists. OK.
Here is my view. Faith is a gift from God. If you are a non-believer, this will be seen as nonsense by you. However, it is not.
Further, once that faith has been given, faith becomes the substance , (one might see "substance" as the inner witness of truth.) of things hoped for and for enlightenment of the truth. Read Holy Spirit for the Christians out there.
So, without faith, it can be said that one cannot understand the things of God.
But, don't give up. God will freely give to those who seek.
Want to be sure of not finding? Then don't seek. You will not find.
I offer an analogy. Let's suppose I have traveled to some faraway place and have eaten some exotic dish not found in your home country. I can try to explain how it tastes. I have tasted it but you have not. So, when someone denies that the exotic dish tastes the way I describe, I see them as not accepting my testimony and wonder why they reject it. Further when they tell me that I did not eat of it and I am lying about the exotic dish, I see them as lost in their ignorance and lost in their own world.
TF
Here's where your example falls apart. When you describe your exotic dish to me we can discuss it's ingredients. We can see if they exist. Heck, I can probably find all the ingredients in Denver. I could see the restaurant on Google street-view, and if you were in Boston, eating with Leighton and his lovely bride there will probably be pictures of your exotic dish posted right here on The Fire.
In other words, unlike your faith, there would be evidence for your exotic dish.
Well, you missed the point about testimony and the expressing of non-belief of what is known by me to be true.
You are also re-stating my narrative to suit your comments.
TF
And you miss the part about weighing testimony with evidence.
Lets change the above example. You tell me you flew to a country that is on no map, on an airline that does not exist. You claim to have eaten an exotic dish with ingredients that no one else has ever seen or heard of, and you can produce neither these alleged ingredients, a description of how, or where they are grown, or a photograph of the alleged ingredients, or the completed dish. As you can see, it would only be reasonable for me to be skeptical of your testimony.
If you expect your testimony to be believed, it needs to match the facts and be backed up by evidence.
Well, that might be your opinion but that is not what Jesus taught. This is rich, agnostics and atheists telling Christians what we believe. Nonsense.
TF
I have not seen where any one has said "You believe such."
Some of us have declared things we have been taught about Christianity. And some have mentioned things told to them by practicing Christians.
But so far, I have not seen where any has tried to state that a member of this board believes in any particular manner.
Well here is one:
Agreed, avoiding bad acts and even trying to accomplish good ones ins the the basis for admittance to Heaven.[/b]
Hence the reason a 'Christian' will never bat an eye when screwing someone over, or diddling kids for that matter.
The comment above is clearly not what Jesus taught. He does not know of where he speaks. His view or opinion may be that but comment to totally wrong.
There are more if you care to look.
TF
Matthew 5:20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Romans 2:6, 13 Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Seems this thread has devolved and is no longer about agnostics and atheists. OK.
Here is my view. Faith is a gift from God. If you are a non-believer, this will be seen as nonsense by you. However, it is not.
Further, once that faith has been given, faith becomes the substance , (one might see "substance" as the inner witness of truth.) of things hoped for and for enlightenment of the truth. Read Holy Spirit for the Christians out there.
So, without faith, it can be said that one cannot understand the things of God.
But, don't give up. God will freely give to those who seek.
Want to be sure of not finding? Then don't seek. You will not find.
I offer an analogy. Let's suppose I have traveled to some faraway place and have eaten some exotic dish not found in your home country. I can try to explain how it tastes. I have tasted it but you have not. So, when someone denies that the exotic dish tastes the way I describe, I see them as not accepting my testimony and wonder why they reject it. Further when they tell me that I did not eat of it and I am lying about the exotic dish, I see them as lost in their ignorance and lost in their own world.
TF
Here's where your example falls apart. When you describe your exotic dish to me we can discuss it's ingredients. We can see if they exist. Heck, I can probably find all the ingredients in Denver. I could see the restaurant on Google street-view, and if you were in Boston, eating with Leighton and his lovely bride there will probably be pictures of your exotic dish posted right here on The Fire.
In other words, unlike your faith, there would be evidence for your exotic dish.
Well, you missed the point about testimony and the expressing of non-belief of what is known by me to be true.
You are also re-stating my narrative to suit your comments.
TF
And you miss the part about weighing testimony with evidence.
Lets change the above example. You tell me you flew to a country that is on no map, on an airline that does not exist. You claim to have eaten an exotic dish with ingredients that no one else has ever seen or heard of, and you can produce neither these alleged ingredients, a description of how, or where they are grown, or a photograph of the alleged ingredients, or the completed dish. As you can see, it would only be reasonable for me to be skeptical of your testimony.
If you expect your testimony to be believed, it needs to match the facts and be backed up by evidence.
Nope, you just introduced a red herring. You are choosing to ignore the point as it does not suit your purposes.
Well, that might be your opinion but that is not what Jesus taught. This is rich, agnostics and atheists telling Christians what we believe. Nonsense.
TF
I have not seen where any one has said "You believe such."
Some of us have declared things we have been taught about Christianity. And some have mentioned things told to them by practicing Christians.
But so far, I have not seen where any has tried to state that a member of this board believes in any particular manner.
Well here is one:
Agreed, avoiding bad acts and even trying to accomplish good ones ins the the basis for admittance to Heaven.[/b]
Hence the reason a 'Christian' will never bat an eye when screwing someone over, or diddling kids for that matter.
The comment above is clearly not what Jesus taught. He does not know of where he speaks. His view or opinion may be that but comment to totally wrong.
There are more if you care to look.
TF
Matthew 5:20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Romans 2:6, 13 Who will render to each one according to his deeds. ... For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
AS, I will take this in bites.
2 Corinthians 5:10 refers ONLY to the judgment of Christians. We will be judged "in a review of our works, for the purpose of rewards.
Now, you obviously did not know that. You may have assumed that the passage applied to all people,. It does not.
I point out that it is "rich" that atheists and agnostics tell Christian what we believe. You have made an error in biblical interpretation.
Matthew 5:20 Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
You again misunderstand. Either by choice or ???
The lesson being taught here is that the "righteousness" of the Pharisees was external. Only by their practices and works. Jesus was teaching that "righteousness" must be internal and that of the heart.
Jesus taught that salvation by works or good deeds or plus point being greater than demerits was NOT how to become righteous on the inside
Nope, you just introduced a red herring. You are choosing to ignore the point as it does not suit your purposes.
TF
I did no such thing. We've been on the theme of evidence vs. faith for sometime. All I did was demonstrate why testimony alone may not be a sufficient basis for belief.
As for your metaphysical ramblings about some internal faith, they are neither testable, verifiable, nor falsifiable, and that's why you've retreated to this last thin tattered bastion for your failing argument.
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Warning: Ramble mode on as it is getting late here...
Odd but true, look at this passage with this translation:
"....He will reward each person according to what he has done."
So, the question is: What have you done with Jesus? Sought the Savior or rejected him?
I also point out that you seem to be doing a passage lookup and do not delve into the context of any of the verses you referred to. ok...
Jesus is referring to his "messiahship" in these verses. He will indeed return and deal with men based on their character. If righteous in heart He will reward and if found not-righteous and evil in their works, it is really bad news.
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Warning: Ramble mode on as it is getting late here...
Odd but true, look at this passage with this translation:
"....He will reward each person according to what he has done."
So, the question is: What have you done with Jesus? Sought the Savior or rejected him?
I also point out that you seem to be doing a passage lookup and do not delve into the context of any of the verses you referred to. ok...
Jesus is referring to his "messiahship" in these verses. He will indeed return and deal with men based on their character. If righteous in heart He will reward and if found not-righteous and evil in their works, it is really bad news.
TF
It's pretty ironic how you claim none of those passages mean what they say.
Mt 16:27 is as straight forward as it gets, and that's why you had to go into "rambling mode" (aka BS mode), because there is no other way to get around the words on the paper.
In order to state categorically and absolutely "there is no God" one must know for sure He's not sitting on some rock on the back side of Jupiter's 3rd moon. In fact, to make the claim "there is no God" one would have to be able to make an exhaustive list of everything that exists in the cosmos and show god is not one of those items. That, of course, would mean the person making the statement and the list is All-Knowing, and, therefore, God himself. It is a basic axiom of logic that one cannot deny his own existence.
The statement "there is no God" is therefore self-defeating, and logically impossible.
One may say he is 99.9% sure god doesn't exist, or he hasn't seen evidence or he is unsure. (agnostic) But, no one can ever truly make the absolute statement "there is no god" (atheist)
Pepe, welcome to the Forum and philosophical/religious discussion.
Actually Pepe, the world is full of Athiest. Virtually everyone on this forum is an Atheist. Many functional atheist admit that logically it's impossible to prove a negative. However, if you can change the negative to a question of fact, a religion can be disproven.
Let me give you an example. According to the ancient Greek religions, the Gods lived atop Mount Olympus. Men have visited the top of Mount Olympus and there were no Gods to be found. Having disproven this foundational element of the Greek religions, we can say with 100% certainty their god do not exist and relegate this religion to the status of Myth.
The same can be said for the Aztec religion that required human blood sacrifices to insure the sun would continue to rise. Their murder shrines remain idle for centuries, yet the sun continues to rise. In addition, with Newton and Einsteins explanations of gravity, the true force behind the sunrise we can with 100% certainty dismiss this religion as false, and relegate it to the status of Myth.
Likewise, we can apply the same level of scrutiny to the Bible and various Christian interperations of it. As an example EVERYONE one this site is an an Atheist in their beliefs of the Millerite sect. The Millerite predicted Armageddon would occur in 1849. Since Armageddon didn't occur in 1849, once again, we can unequivocally say they were wrong.
We can extend this same type of analysis to the idea's that the Christian God is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful, and that the Bible is the perfect word of God. All knowing doesn't survive Genesis, all loving doesn't survive Exodus, and as for all powerful and perfect word, well, those do not survive the conflicting genealogies of Jesus and the inability of the gospels to agree upon how many of what and at what time were present at the opening of Jesus's tomb. The inability for him to bring consensus on even these simple points once again demonstrates God is neither all powerful, nor is the test perfect.
As a result of the Biblical text failing the reading against itself, it too can be relegated to the category of Myth.
Watching christians discuss the difference between atheism and agnosticism- especially by quoting scripture-is about as entertaining as watching atheists and agnostics discussing which god to believe in by quoting google.
Well, I was just finishing some thoughts on Romans when I read your post. It is a waste of time.
Another example of a non-christian telling Christians what the bible says. You simply do not know whereof you speak.
You just have not taken the time to read and understand the verses you quoted. I think you just do a passage or keyword lookup then post it with your own meaning and then "knock it down." Just a variation of a strawman fallacy.
When you say something like "it cannot be plainer than that." You are just flat out wrong.
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Warning: Ramble mode on as it is getting late here...
Odd but true, look at this passage with this translation:
"....He will reward each person according to what he has done."
So, the question is: What have you done with Jesus? Sought the Savior or rejected him?
I also point out that you seem to be doing a passage lookup and do not delve into the context of any of the verses you referred to. ok...
Jesus is referring to his "messiahship" in these verses. He will indeed return and deal with men based on their character. If righteous in heart He will reward and if found not-righteous and evil in their works, it is really bad news.
TF
It's pretty ironic how you claim none of those passages mean what they say.
Mt 16:27 is as straight forward as it gets, and that's why you had to go into "rambling mode" (aka BS mode), because there is no other way to get around the words on the paper.
AS,
You say that "it is ironic that none of the passages mean what they say."
Do you read 2 Corinthians 5:10 and conclude that Paul is writing to Christians or the world at large, to include non-Christians?
It makes a difference. You seem to assume that it is written to everybody. I think it means exactly what it says, but to whom it is said makes a huge difference. Can you see that?
Can you see that if it is said to Christians it may mean just exactly what it says and you have taken it out of context and applied it to mankind in general?
OK now... NO bs... read the entire chapter and you tell me what you think it says and to whom it applies.
TFF49 there are over 20 biblical reference regarding the path of salvation being through one's works, not faith. This is why sects like the early Calvinist places so much emphasis on works.
In contrast there about a dozen reference to salvation being through faith alone, with about half of those occurring in Romans. Since Faith alone (don't worry, you don't actually have to do any real work) is an easier sale then telling your follower they might actually have to be productive, over the last 400 years we seen a de-emphasis on works, and a greater emphasis on faith as the path to salvation. When paired with the continuing body of evidence against a literalist reading of the Bible, once again, the preacher have to fall back on the faith card, making it all the more attractive for them to faith side of the contradictions and attempt to explain away the requirement for personal works.
TFF49 there are over 20 biblical reference regarding the path of salvation being through one's works, not faith. This is why sects like the early Calvinist places so much emphasis on works.
In contrast there about a dozen reference to salvation being through faith alone, with about half of those occurring in Romans. Since Faith alone (don't worry, you don't actually have to do any real work) is an easier sale then telling your follower they might actually have to be productive, over the last 400 years we seen a de-emphasis on works, and a greater emphasis on faith as the path to salvation. When paired with the continuing body of evidence against a literalist reading of the Bible, once again, the preacher have to fall back on the faith card, making it all the more attractive for them to faith side of the contradictions and attempt to explain away the requirement for personal works.
Well, you simply are wrong. Salvation is not by works. Check the statements of faith of the major Christian denominations.
You ignore facts and return to the same old stuff.
Another example of a non-christian telling Christians what the bible says. You simply do not know whereof you speak.
Pretty clear that AS knows exactly of what he speaks in this thread.
To imply that only Christians are the only ones that can know what the Bible says, as you did, is just plain silly.
You are absolutely right. Satan knows the Bible real well....he quoted Psalms to Jesus. He did not even have to use Google and copy and paste. He knew it by heart.
Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
I flop back and forth between being a skeptical deist and a hopeful agnostic. No hedging. Just not smart enough to be certain.
Dr. Kindell said, �There would be a lot more serious Christians if we had a lot more serious skeptics.� I asked him what he meant and he said if they truly are serious they will try to prove the Bible wrong and end up verifying It. There are plenty of books by educated men who tried to and failed, subsequently becoming ardent Christians.
Yeah, well this skeptic didn't come to this position without a great deal of thought about it.
I would bet that there are a pile more former Christians who've come to a similar conclusion as I did after examining their faith. It's just there isn't an entrenched organization that will publish their stories and the individuals aren't admonished to proselytize their new found 'faith'.
But if what you believe gets you through the night, more power to you. Just let me get my own sleep and please try to keep from waving your faith in my face.
Yeah, well this skeptic didn't come to this position without a great deal of thought about it.
I would bet that there are a pile more former Christians who've come to a similar conclusion as I did after examining their faith.
IME, you are absolutely correct. I was a "born again believer" for 20 years. During my transition, most atheist and agnostic I encountered were once believers. One acquaintance actually felt the calling to become a minister and the more in depth he studied, the more skeptical he became.
Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
Minutia won't matter much when Lucifer whips out his monster, flaming, dong on the day of judgment.
I would encourage or challenge any nay- or maybe-sayers to read through the Bible and attempt to prove it wrong (C.S Lewis-style) by anything and everything at your disposal-archeology, secular history, philosophy, the physical constants of the universe, what it says about human nature-with only one requirement, honesty.
Until you inform yourself of it's self interpretive nature, you are ill served to offer any opinions on its substance.
What you [/i]feel[i] or [/i]think[i] or [/i]desire[i] is NOT the standard for ultimate truth. Most of what I've skimmed over here shows less a lot less knowledge and careful thought than I would have expected from a bunch of gun looneys and hand loaders.
I would encourage or challenge any nay- or maybe-sayers to read through the Bible and attempt to prove it wrong (C.S Lewis-style) by anything and everything at your disposal-archeology, secular history, philosophy, the physical constants of the universe, what it says about human nature-with only one requirement, honesty.
Until you inform yourself of it's self interpretive nature, you are ill served to offer any opinions on its substance.
What you [/i]feel[i] or [/i]think[i] or [/i]desire[i] is NOT the standard for ultimate truth. Most of what I've skimmed over here shows less a lot less knowledge and careful thought than I would have expected from a bunch of gun looneys and hand loaders.
Agnostic is just another way of saying, "I don't give a rat's ass". And I don't.
Not quite. There is a big difference between "I don't know" and "I don't care". Ignorance vs. Apathy.
There you go with that "learning" thing again.
Had a great time, thank you and your lovely bride again.
Ed
BTW, I'm in the "don't care" group. I don't care whether you are agnostic or atheist. I believe that, sooner or later, you will meet your Creator and all this will be put to rest once and for all.
I would encourage or challenge any nay- or maybe-sayers to read through the Bible and attempt to prove it wrong (C.S Lewis-style) by anything and everything at your disposal-archeology, secular history, philosophy, the physical constants of the universe, what it says about human nature-with only one requirement, honesty.
Until you inform yourself of it's self interpretive nature, you are ill served to offer any opinions on its substance.
What you [/i]feel[i] or [/i]think[i] or [/i]desire[i] is NOT the standard for ultimate truth. Most of what I've skimmed over here shows less a lot less knowledge and careful thought than I would have expected from a bunch of gun looneys and hand loaders.
You are about 70 posts behind.
I apologize for that. I don't always have the time or inclination to read a thread in it's entirety. Take it for what it's worth.
So, in addition, there is a difference between an atheist and an apatheist.
I appreciate the intellectual exercises, and can enjoy engaging such. Those, in part, have lead me to understand that none of such endeavor will enable, or prevent, entrance to Heaven and eternal joy. Some factors are more important and encompassing than human intellectual exercises.
what I think I have learned reading this thread is that no one, no not one knows. given that, some believe, have faith, etc., and others also know that they don't know, and might not have faith, belief, etc.
others, such as the atheists, know at least in their own mind, given the available evidence that there is no God.
an agnostic mind might be the most honest mind that walks amongst us?
I know this much. Ten people who posted on this thread are on my ignore list, as a reminder to myself that they are buttholes. Every one of their posts were denying, if not insulting, the existence of God. Quite telling, considering that nobody makes that list because of religious dialog.
Suppose I'm agnostic. I just don't have the faith. I used to visit different churches trying to find that faith but finally quit. I believe in a higher power, just don't know who/what it is and if any religion prays to him.
Say you live your whole life in a tropical island or jungle village and you've never heard of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim god. You live a moral unselfish life, but you're going to hell because you don't believe? My god wouldn't do that.
Religions are started and written down by man very often large distances apart with different customs and stories handed down.
My own theory is most religions and the non-affiliated pray to the same god.
I live a good life and I despise malicious selfishness, if my god is a just god then I'm in.
Suppose I'm agnostic. I just don't have the faith. I used to visit different churches trying to find that faith but finally quit. I believe in a higher power, just don't know who/what it is and if any religion prays to him.
Say you live your whole life in a tropical island or jungle village and you've never heard of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim god. You live a moral unselfish life, but you're going to hell because you don't believe? My god wouldn't do that.
Religions are started and written down by man very often large distances apart with different customs and stories handed down.
My own theory is most religions and the non-affiliated pray to the same god.
I live a good life and I despise malicious selfishness, if my god is a just god then I'm in.
Here�s the problem with you position and the Christian God, Jesus Christ. He says you are a wretched sinner and you need Him. He says His Dad sent Him to pay the price for �The wages of sin is death� and your death does not satisfy His Dad. If you reject His gift of His Son He gets very indignant and sends you to Hell. It�s that simple. To accept His gift you repent and tell God you want Jesus� death to apply to your sins.
So a god that punishes the ignorant is worthy of worship? Someone who doesn't know God, hasn't been introduced to Him, or isn't 'smart enough to know the 'obvious'?
Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
Atheist proclaims he knows God is a ruse and does not exist.
An Agnostic admits he does not have the answers. In my case I have a hard time believing in that what I can't see, hear or smell, but also recognize that greater minds then my own throughout history have been believers, so who am I to say?
Sure, I know the differences as defined by Webster. I am interested in what our members say.
For myself: I suppose there might be now, or might have been at some time in the billions of years since this Universe was spawned, several species out there with vastly more intelligence, wisdom, science, and technology than we have accumulated to this date. But those beings, if they ever existed, most certainly have no interest or effect upon the present day events of this planet. They certainly do not care about, or intervene in my day to day activities
I believe that any species in this Universe is bound by the natural laws of Physics.
I firmly believe that when electrical activity in the brain ceases, all that a man is, was, or ever will be ceases to exist. Thus there can be no Afterlife, no Heaven, and no Hell. I believe that all stories of supernatural events, contrary to the known and unknown laws of science, are matters of coincidence, misinterpretation, and or delusion.
Agnostic or Atheist? Or is there really a difference?
By definition, your hpothesis means that all thought is determined by electro-chemical processes; material processes of cause and effect, if you will. Materialism (your hypothesis, or belief---the idea that the universe is comprised of nothing more than material causes and their effects) necessarily entails a denial of any such thing as the metaphysical freedom of the mind, freedom of thought that is. This entails the belief that "truth" is entirely illusory. For there to be such a thing as "truth" the mind must be free to distinguish the truth from error and materialism denies that possibility. A mind whose "thoughts" are the mere by-products (effects) of material causes is not free in the metaphysical sense to apprehend anything. Truth, in the materialis universe, is therefore an oxymoron. It is a self-contradiction. Materialists are therefore very much like that very first philosopher---the Cretan who said that all Cretans are liars!
Atheism is a dogmatic position that goes way beyond the evidence and is, in the final analysis, self-refuting.
I know this much. Ten people who posted on this thread are on my ignore list, as a reminder to myself that they are buttholes. Every one of their posts were denying, if not insulting, the existence of God. Quite telling, considering that nobody makes that list because of religious dialog.
I have analyzed my own data and found your results to be independently confirmed. ;-{>8
I can see some research on "materialism" in my future.
Idaho, for an excellent read, you might consider Phillip Johnson's "Reason in the Balance". There are also some things I could send you (short articles, if I can find them, if you want them). He is a retired Berkely law professor who writes very clearly.
Dictionary.com Faith: belief that is not based on proof:
If, for some reason, you think that such a definition proves, or even hints, that faith is contrary to fact, you appear to be a very shallow thinker. Even the definition you offer there shows nothing that rules out the co-existence and mutual support of the two.
If your beliefs are consistent with the evidence, there is no need for faith.
Nope, you just introduced a red herring. You are choosing to ignore the point as it does not suit your purposes.
TF
I did no such thing. We've been on the theme of evidence vs. faith for sometime. All I did was demonstrate why testimony alone may not be a sufficient basis for belief.
As for your metaphysical ramblings about some internal faith, they are neither testable, verifiable, nor falsifiable, and that's why you've retreated to this last thin tattered bastion for your failing argument.
So falsifiability is your criterion? I think the beliefs of the most certified Wittensteinian Atheist/empiricis/positivist can be shown to be as utterly dependent upon an act of metaphysical faith as the beliefs of the most fundamental Biblical literalist. Atheists are, virtually by definition, materialists. But materialism denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind, which is a necessary condition precedent for intelligible thought about anything. Atheism simply exempts itself from the strictures of its own theory in an act of metaphysical faith that rivals, for sheer credulity, anything seen in fundamentalist Christianity. Myself, I like my Christianity leveaned with a good does of Aristotelian rationalism. I am out of town for a few days, but I'll take this up when I return on Sunday, if anyone is still interested by then.
If there is an omnipotent and omniscient God, don't you think He factored the two into his dynamic?
I believe that our God is omniscient and omnipotent - and that he has factored in EVERYTHING. But, having those qualities and accomplishing such factoring does not at all mean that God does not make distinctions between such beliefs and behaviors among mankind. I know not nearly enough to make a statement such as yours, and await the explanation of your apparently superior knowledge base.
I will never cease to be astonished at the erudition, intellectual accomplishment, ability to speak/write clearly and definitively, and the wisdom of many, many of the members. Then there are the rest of you poor losers who don't believe in God!
CCCC, "I believe that our God is omniscient and omnipotent"
Do you believe that God can smite someone who displeases him? If you don't believe God would smite someone who displeases him is it ok if he gets one of his believers to smite them? A yes or no answer is ok, please don't quote Bible scripture.
Sometimes I wonder what we're really debating in these threads. I read the following recently, a quote by someone who is undoubtedly much smarter than I am, and likely smarter than anyone posting on this thread:
Quote
"Atheism is the least plausible of all theologies. I mean, there are a lot of wild ones out there, but the one that clearly runs so contrary to what is possible, is atheism."
And this coming from someone with a solid scientific education who describes himself as a non-religious person. He grew up in a faith but rejected it and does not practice faith. If an intelligent, non-religious person can see how implausible atheism is, then maybe some of us haven't thought it through. Still, thinking it through to a position of theism would leave one very, very far from being a Christian.
Sometimes I wonder what we're really debating in these threads. I read the following recently, a quote by someone who is undoubtedly much smarter than I am, and likely smarter than anyone posting on this thread:
Quote
"Atheism is the least plausible of all theologies. I mean, there are a lot of wild ones out there, but the one that clearly runs so contrary to what is possible, is atheism."
And this coming from someone with a solid scientific education who describes himself as a non-religious person. He grew up in a faith but rejected it and does not practice faith. If an intelligent, non-religious person can see how implausible atheism is, then maybe some of us haven't thought it through. Still, thinking it through to a position of theism would leave one very, very far from being a Christian.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
If deism is "the belief in God NOT based on revelation," then can someone be an adeist?
Seriously though, none of those definitions are adequate. 1. Many theists do not depend on revelation for their views. 2. Some of the classic arguments for God made by theists were not based on revelation. Example: St. Anselm offered as a logical proof for God, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Nothing in that statement is based on revelation, so in your definition that would make him a deist. He was certainly not a deist, and not merely a theist, but a full-fledged Christian. 3. And it can't quite be said that Christianity is theism. It's far more than that, and theism certainly is not Christianity -- though many talk as though a Christian is a theist and a theist is a Christian.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
No. Deism is the belief in a God who may have influenced the beginnings of the Universe, but exerts no influence upon the actual workings of the Universe beyond some initial creation act or event (for which He might be ultimately responsible).
BTW, Jefferson is often claimed to have been a Deist, but Jefferson also claimed that "almighty God hath created the mind free...", that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever (speaking of the injustice of chattel slavery) and that "the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them".
All of these quotes by Jefferson (and a myriad of others reflect the thought of a man who believed that the hand of God was actively at work in the Universe and in the affairs of men.
In any event, the struggle is not between Deism and Theism. It is between belief and unbelief. Deism, properly understood, concedes every necessary thing to Theism with respect to the idea of God and the meaning of the idea of a Supreme Being in the public square and vice versa. Both beliefs stand in opposition to naturalistic materialism, or materialism. Both uanssisted reason (the "laws of nature") and divine revelation (the "laws of nature's God") stand upon the same ground and are in essential agreement as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. It was upon an appeal to both of these (essentially )non-contradictory (in the decisive respect) systems of belief that the Founders appealed (in addition "to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" for the "rectitude of their intentions").
As an aside, it would have been pointless for the Founders to appeal to God for the justness of their cause if they did not believe that the opinion of that God mattered, viz., that he exercised no influence upon the Universe.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
No. Deism is the belief in a God who may have influenced the beginnings of the Universe, but exerts no influence upon the actual workings of the Universe beyond some initial creation act or event (for which He might be ultimately responsible).
BTW, Jefferson is often claimed to have been a Deist, but Jefferson also claimed that "almighty God hath created the mind free...", that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever (speaking of the injustice of chattel slavery) and that "the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them".
All of these quotes by Jefferson (and a myriad of others reflect the thought of a man who believed that the hand of God was actively at work in the Universe and in the affairs of men.
In any event, the struggle is not between Deism and Theism. It is between belief and unbelief. Deism, properly understood, concedes every necessary thing to Theism with respect to the idea of God and the meaning of the idea of a Supreme Being in the public square and vice versa. Both beliefs stand in opposition to naturalistic materialism, or materialism. Both uanssisted reason (the "laws of nature") and divine revelation (the "laws of nature's God") stand upon the same ground and are in essential agreement as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. It was upon an appeal to both of these (essentially )non-contradictory (in the decisive respect) systems of belief that the Founders appealed (in addition "to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" for the "rectitude of their intentions").
As an aside, it would have been pointless for the Founders to appeal to God for the justness of their cause if they did not believe that the opinion of that God mattered, viz., that he exercised no influence upon the Universe.
Jordan
You are now going to tell a Deist what Deism is? Well I suppose that's only fair as a Deist tells you what a Christian is.
The problem is Christians have no idea what they are which is why there are so many interpretations of the Bible and so many Christian sects and denominations each saying they have figured out the true meaning of the Word of God as revealed in the Book of all Books the Bible.
Christianity is a theist religion because Christians believe the Bible is the revealed word of God.
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist as research done by early American historians and some theologians now believe.
As to praying by Deists, some Deists believe that praying for anything is ridiculousness because we are asking God to violate his laws of nature. Some Deists believe that prayers of thanksgiving are okay because prayers of thanksgiving ask God for nothing. Some Deists figure praying is okay because what have you got to lose. Praying by Deists is a pretty open ended argument.
Deism is not an organized religion not does Deism have a holy book of any type. Deists do not believe in any type of revealed religion that comes from a holy book of legends and myths.
Deism came about in the 18th century primarily from Thomas Paine with his pamphlet "The Age of Reason." There was problem of reconciliation for the educated and enlighten between the revealed Word of God, i.e. the Bible and between science and the observation of nature. This argument is still going on to this day.
Nope, you just introduced a red herring. You are choosing to ignore the point as it does not suit your purposes.
TF
I did no such thing. We've been on the theme of evidence vs. faith for sometime. All I did was demonstrate why testimony alone may not be a sufficient basis for belief.
As for your metaphysical ramblings about some internal faith, they are neither testable, verifiable, nor falsifiable, and that's why you've retreated to this last thin tattered bastion for your failing argument.
So falsifiability is your criterion? I think the beliefs of the most certified Wittensteinian Atheist/empiricis/positivist can be shown to be as utterly dependent upon an act of metaphysical faith as the beliefs of the most fundamental Biblical literalist. Atheists are, virtually by definition, materialists. But materialism denies the possibility of the metaphysical freedom of the mind, which is a necessary condition precedent for intelligible thought about anything. Atheism simply exempts itself from the strictures of its own theory in an act of metaphysical faith that rivals, for sheer credulity, anything seen in fundamentalist Christianity. Myself, I like my Christianity leveaned with a good does of Aristotelian rationalism. I am out of town for a few days, but I'll take this up when I return on Sunday, if anyone is still interested by then.
Rob, let's unpack your statement.
First, you claim Atheist are first and foremost materialist, and this materialism leads to non-belief. In reality, you have the chain of events all wrong. At our core, most are skeptics, and it is the lack of evidence for the supernatural, not some "faith" in the material, that leads to non-belief. A skeptic does not deny the possibility of anything out of hand without examining the evidence, or as is usually the case for metaphysical claims (metaphysics being that which is beyond science or observation, i.e. the supernatural) the total lack of evidence.
Next you asset, without evidence, that intelligent thought requires a supernatural freedom of the mind.
Why?
Neuroscience can measure the transmission of nerve impulses within the brain. They can detect the reaction to thought provoking stimuli and the accompanying changes in brain chemistry. Our ability to think is explained largely by chemistry. No supernatural (or as you would call it, metaphysical) explanation required.
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist....
Think again. The Christian believes God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. When a deist comes to that belief, he is no longer a deist.
Steve.
And us agnostics just don't worry about it too much. If there is a god & he/she doesn't like the character of my soul, I'd have to believe that my soul (if there really is a soul) wouldn't be very happy in heaven....& besides, how does anybody really know if there's only two places to go? Heaven or hell??? There really should be more than two choices...
First, you claim Atheist are first and foremost materialist, and this materialism leads to non-belief. In reality, you have the chain of events all wrong. At our core, most are skeptics, and it is the lack of evidence for the supernatural, not some "faith" in the material, that leads to non-belief. A skeptic does not deny the possibility of anything out of hand without examining the evidence, or as is usually the case for metaphysical claims (metaphysics being that which is beyond science or observation, i.e. the supernatural) the total lack of evidence.
Atheists cannot avoid a materialist worldview. It doesn't matter whether they begin as skeptics or not. In fact, by beginning as a skeptic, they reject everything but the material. The "chain of events" you refer to is not necessarily the same for everyone. Atheists have not cornered the market on skepticism. You seem to think that if a person begins as a skeptic he will come to atheism. That can't be true because many Christians began as skeptics.
I will never cease to be astonished at the erudition, intellectual accomplishment, ability to speak/write clearly and definitively, and the wisdom of many, many of the members. Then there are the rest of you poor losers who don't believe in God!
Terry
Nice ad hominem attack.
Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?
Sometimes I wonder what we're really debating in these threads. I read the following recently, a quote by someone who is undoubtedly much smarter than I am, and likely smarter than anyone posting on this thread:
Quote
"Atheism is the least plausible of all theologies. I mean, there are a lot of wild ones out there, but the one that clearly runs so contrary to what is possible, is atheism."
And this coming from someone with a solid scientific education who describes himself as a non-religious person. He grew up in a faith but rejected it and does not practice faith. If an intelligent, non-religious person can see how implausible atheism is, then maybe some of us haven't thought it through. Still, thinking it through to a position of theism would leave one very, very far from being a Christian.
Steve.
Steve, it's just an argument from Personal Incredulity, which is a very common logical fallacy.
... watch how Sam Harris dismantles his metaphysics claims.
OK. Let's talk about logical fallacies. In equating the belief that Elvis is alive with the belief in metaphysical reality show Harris to be unserious. Certainly not all metaphysical claims can be assumed to be equal, as he does. The argument is ad hominem. To ridicule your opponent and to make the audience laugh at him is not winning the debate. It's to tell a joke.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
If deism is "the belief in God NOT based on revelation," then can someone be an adeist?
Seriously though, none of those definitions are adequate. 1. Many theists do not depend on revelation for their views. 2. Some of the classic arguments for God made by theists were not based on revelation. Example: St. Anselm offered as a logical proof for God, "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Nothing in that statement is based on revelation, so in your definition that would make him a deist. He was certainly not a deist, and not merely a theist, but a full-fledged Christian. 3. And it can't quite be said that Christianity is theism. It's far more than that, and theism certainly is not Christianity -- though many talk as though a Christian is a theist and a theist is a Christian.
Steve.
Steve, If you believe in a God that listens to and answers your prayers, you are a Theist.
If you believe a god cast the die that put the universe in motion and walked away, you are a Deist.
CCCC, "I believe that our God is omniscient and omnipotent"
Do you believe that God can smite someone who displeases him? If you don't believe God would smite someone who displeases him is it ok if he gets one of his believers to smite them? A yes or no answer is ok, please don't quote Bible scripture.
I am not answering in terms of "displease", for what it might take to displease God to such an extent, and what His reason might be for smiting, are beyond my full comprehension.
But - do I "believe that God can smite someone"? Yes, I believe that He can. He is omnipotent.
"Is it OK if He gets one of His beleivers to smite them"? I am not equipped to pass judgement on what might be "OK" for God to do in achieving His purposes. He knows that - He is omniscient.
With regard to your request, rarely, if ever, do I quote Scripture verses/passages in these discussions. If a discussant is knowledgeable of the Scripture, there seems no need to quote. If the discussant is not knowledgeable of Scripture, such a quote is not likely to be useful or effective due to contextual matters - and disinterest.
Neuroscience can measure the transmission of nerve impulses within the brain. They can detect the reaction to thought provoking stimuli and the accompanying changes in brain chemistry. Our ability to think is explained largely by chemistry. No supernatural (or as you would call it, metaphysical) explanation required.
On what I know, I would not deny the first two statements. However, in no way do such facts (basic measurements/observations) begin to "explain" our ability to think - which is a very diverse and complex activity. Actually, compared to the two measurements/observations you cite there is a plethora of "non-scientific/non-chemistry" evidence regarding our ability to think. This thread, and this post, comprise some of that.
Deism is the belief in God NOT based on revelation.
Christianity is theism.
No. Deism is the belief in a God who may have influenced the beginnings of the Universe, but exerts no influence upon the actual workings of the Universe beyond some initial creation act or event (for which He might be ultimately responsible).
BTW, Jefferson is often claimed to have been a Deist, but Jefferson also claimed that "almighty God hath created the mind free...", that "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever (speaking of the injustice of chattel slavery) and that "the mass of mankind was not born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them".
All of these quotes by Jefferson (and a myriad of others reflect the thought of a man who believed that the hand of God was actively at work in the Universe and in the affairs of men. In any event, the struggle is not between Deism and Theism. It is between belief and unbelief. Deism, properly understood, concedes every necessary thing to Theism with respect to the idea of God and the meaning of the idea of a Supreme Being in the public square and vice versa. Both beliefs stand in opposition to naturalistic materialism, or materialism. Both uanssisted reason (the "laws of nature") and divine revelation (the "laws of nature's God") stand upon the same ground and are in essential agreement as to what constitutes moral and immoral behavior. It was upon an appeal to both of these (essentially )non-contradictory (in the decisive respect) systems of belief that the Founders appealed (in addition "to the Supreme Judge of the Universe" for the "rectitude of their intentions"). As an aside, it would have been pointless for the Founders to appeal to God for the justness of their cause if they did not believe that the opinion of that God mattered, viz., that he exercised no influence upon the Universe. Jordan
I now think it's possible for a Christian to be a Christian Deist....
Think again. The Christian believes God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. When a deist comes to that belief, he is no longer a deist.
Steve.
Belief in Christ as God is not the point. The point is that the religion of a Deist is natural religion, i.e reason, versus revealed religion, in the case of a Christian, the Bible. Christians believe in God and that Christ is God because it's been revealed to them in the Bible.
Deists believe in God because of reason and natural theology.
I agree that being a Christian is tough with trying be a Deist too.
With regard to your request, rarely, if ever, do I quote Scripture verses/passages in these discussions. If a discussant is knowledgeable of the Scripture, there seems no need to quote. If the discussant is not knowledgeable of Scripture, my quote is not likely to be useful or effective due to contextual matters - and disinterest.
It may even be counterproductive and cause a person to turn you off.
Story to that point: Recently I was on a plane seated beside a nice lady who I came to realize had a particular political point of view and was pretty closed-minded to any other. She was full of questions about me -- where I lived, where I was going, what I did... all the usual, but every question had 2 or 3 follow-ups. In my answers I mentioned the book I had recently written. Not wanting to push it on her, I resorted to answering her questions rather than showing her a copy. I finally took out a copy of my book, which has a deer on the cover. She didn't react to that, but opened the book and her eyes fell on the chapter:verse of a Bible quotation. She didn't read anything else, but turned to me and said, "Are you an evangelical?" I waited to answer, hoping for a clue about what she thought an evangelical is. She gave me a clue alright. Her next words were "I don't like evangelicals."
So, it's a fact that when some people see chapter:verse, they automatically dismiss not just what the person is saying, but the person saying it. That's one reason these discussions get nowhere.
I'm not in this or any discussion to convince anyone of anything. That's not my responsibility; it's the Holy Spirit's. But if I can say something that provides him the opportunity to work, that's all I care to do. If he does not work, I'm OK with that.
With regard to your request, rarely, if ever, do I quote Scripture verses/passages in these discussions. If a discussant is knowledgeable of the Scripture, there seems no need to quote. If the discussant is not knowledgeable of Scripture, my quote is not likely to be useful or effective due to contextual matters - and disinterest.
It may even be counterproductive and cause a person to turn you off.
Story to that point: Recently I was on a plane seated beside a nice lady who I came to realize had a particular political point of view and was pretty closed-minded to any other. She was full of questions about me -- where I lived, where I was going, what I did... all the usual, but every question had 2 or 3 follow-ups. In my answers I mentioned the book I had recently written. Not wanting to push it on her, I resorted to answering her questions rather than showing her a copy. I finally took out a copy of my book, which has a deer on the cover. She didn't react to that, but opened the book and her eyes fell on the chapter:verse of a Bible quotation. She didn't read anything else, but turned to me and said, "Are you an evangelical?" I waited to answer, hoping for a clue about what she thought an evangelical is. She gave me a clue alright. Her next words were "I don't like evangelicals."
So, it's a fact that when some people see chapter:verse, they automatically dismiss not just what the person is saying, but the person saying it. That's one reason these discussions get nowhere.
I'm not in this or any discussion to convince anyone of anything. That's not my responsibility; it's the Holy Spirit's. But if I can say something that provides him the opportunity to work, that's all I care to do. If he does not work, I'm OK with that.
Steve.
These are very good point.
Here are two other reasons why it's a wise strategy for your side to avoid quoting chapter and verse.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning and will do nothing to convince a skeptic.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning and will do nothing to convince a skeptic.
The Bible uses circular reasoning for sure. Evolutionists use circular reasoning also. They start with the belief evolution is a fact and then go from there. The difference is it starts with the idea of everything coming from nothing which is contrary to the basic tenet of science: For every action there must be a cause. And the cause must be greater than the action. The difference with the Bible is it uses the scientific concept correctly by starting with an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient Being.
Quote
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text,
For every action there must be a cause. And the cause must be greater than the action.
Sorry my friend, but he above statement actually made me laugh.
Newtons third law is as follows: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
In common parlance, for every actions, there is an equal and opposite reaction....
Your rendition of this physical law isn't even close....
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning and will do nothing to convince a skeptic.
The Bible uses circular reasoning for sure. Evolutionists use circular reasoning also. They start with the belief evolution is a fact and then go from there. The difference is it starts with the idea of everything coming from nothing which is contrary to the basic tenet of science: For every action there must be a cause. And the cause must be greater than the action. The difference with the Bible is it uses the scientific concept correctly by starting with an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient Being.
Quote
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text,
If you don't mind, would you list a dozen or so?
How many of what, and at what time of day were present at the opening of Jesus tomb?
Here are two other reasons why it's a wise strategy for your side to avoid quoting chapter and verse.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning and will do nothing to convince a skeptic.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
A-S-, it is interesting - almost humorous - to see you say "your side" (as if there IS a side) and for you to talk about some "strategy". Silliness abounds.
Those comments would seem to indicate your belief that there is some contest - or battle - engaged by Christians in general against some other group(s) or type(s) of humans. That view reveals one who knows little about Christianity. Such a "contest" belief is absurd, and you flatter yourself beyond description if you think that the Body of Christ would choose you (or your "group") for battling.
Christians do have struggles and battles to engage, as directed by God. And, when we are wise, we never attempt to do the jobs that are the realm of God and the Holy Spirit. Some of our assigned tasks are battles, and some of them very difficult, but they are not battles against the likes of you - no matter how worthy a fellow you might be. Every day we do battle with our sinful nature in efforts to follow and perform God's will. Now, whose "side" is that?
Here are two other reasons why it's a wise strategy for your side to avoid quoting chapter and verse.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning and will do nothing to convince a skeptic.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
A-S-, it is interesting - almost humorous - to see you say "your side" (as if there IS a side) and for you to talk about some "strategy". Silliness abounds.
Those comments would seem to indicate your belief that there is some contest - or battle - engaged by Christians in general against some other group(s) or type(s) of humans. That view reveals one who knows little about Christianity. Such a "contest" belief is absurd, and you flatter yourself beyond description if you think that the Body of Christ would choose you (or your "group") for battling.
Christians do have struggles and battles to engage, as directed by God. And, when we are wise, we never attempt to do the jobs that are the realm of God and the Holy Spirit. Some of our assigned tasks are battles, and some of them very difficult, but they are not battles against the likes of you - no matter how worthy a fellow you might be. Every day we do battle with our sinful nature in efforts to follow and perform God's will. Now, whose "side" is that?
Nothing you said addressed my comments. I made no mention of "side" or "contest" I just agreed with you regarding why the quoting of scripture was ineffective.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
1. Perhaps you are a reader of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. 2. Perhaps you have never heard a capable expositor or Scripture.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
1. Perhaps you are a reader of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. 2. Perhaps you have never heard a capable expositor or Scripture.
Steve.
Exository Preaching: a method by which preachers attempt to explain how the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
Deists believe in God because of reason and natural theology.
Natural theology is a form of revelation.
Steve.
But not DIVINE revelation as per DIVINE revelation in a book of legends and myths.
Certainly written revelation (scripture), personal revelation (Christ), and natural revelation (creation) are all different modes of revelation, but they all have as their source God. thus natural revelation is still divine revelation.
If a human communicator (artist, musician or writer) can reveal something of himself in his creation, certainly a divine communicator can reveal something of himself through his creation.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
1. Perhaps you are a reader of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. 2. Perhaps you have never heard a capable expositor or Scripture.
Steve.
Exository Preaching: a method by which preachers attempt to explain how the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
I see where you're coming from now. You reject the messenger; therefore you reject the message.
I don't do that, but it's good for me to know that you do it. I think this brings us to the end of any worthwhile discussion.
In addition, there are many contradictions in the text, so a contradictory counter quote put you into the position of trying to explain why the text doesn't mean what it says. Once down that rabbit hole, against a good opponent, you will never escape.
1. Perhaps you are a reader of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. 2. Perhaps you have never heard a capable expositor or Scripture.
Steve.
Exository Preaching: a method by which preachers attempt to explain how the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
I see where you're coming from now. You reject the messenger; therefore you reject the message.
I don't do that, but it's good for me to know that you do it. I think this brings us to the end of any worthwhile discussion.
Steve.
I didn't "reject" anything. The evidence just lead in a different direction.
Deists believe in God because of reason and natural theology.
Natural theology is a form of revelation.
Steve.
But not DIVINE revelation as per DIVINE revelation in a book of legends and myths.
Certainly written revelation (scripture), personal revelation (Christ), and natural revelation (creation) are all different modes of revelation, but they all have as their source God. thus natural revelation is still divine revelation.
If a human communicator (artist, musician or writer) can reveal something of himself in his creation, certainly a divine communicator can reveal something of himself through his creation.
Steve.
Again DIVINE revelation refers to revelation by legends and mythologies. If one accepts natural observation as DIVINE revelation then one might as well throw the Bible in the trash heap. Are you ready to do that? If so welcome aboard as a Deist.
Again DIVINE revelation refers to revelation by legends and mythologies. If one accepts natural observation as DIVINE revelation then one might as well throw the Bible in the trash heap. Are you ready to do that? If so welcome aboard as a Deist.
I don't know how anyone who has studied Christianity could be so wrong. You show me you don't understand Christianity or its sources. I have never met a Christian who believes divine revelation comes through legends. That is exactly why the apocryphal gospels are spurious.
Yes, Christians see divine revelation in nature. And Christians see divine revelation in the scriptures. But Christians see the supreme divine revelation in the person of Christ.
According to your flawed thinking, if we accept that God reveals himself through nature, then not only could we throw the Bible on the trash heap, we could also discard Christ. No can do. Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation.
CCCC, "I believe that our God is omniscient and omnipotent"
Do you believe that God can smite someone who displeases him? If you don't believe God would smite someone who displeases him is it ok if he gets one of his believers to smite them? A yes or no answer is ok, please don't quote Bible scripture.
I am not answering in terms of "displease", for what it might take to displease God to such an extent, and what His reason might be for smiting, are beyond my full comprehension.
But - do I "believe that God can smite someone"? Yes, I believe that He can. He is omnipotent.
"Is it OK if He gets one of His beleivers to smite them"? I am not equipped to pass judgement on what might be "OK" for God to do in achieving His purposes. He knows that - He is omniscient.
With regard to your request, rarely, if ever, do I quote Scripture verses/passages in these discussions. If a discussant is knowledgeable of the Scripture, there seems no need to quote. If the discussant is not knowledgeable of Scripture, such a quote is not likely to be useful or effective due to contextual matters - and disinterest.
CCCC, Thanks for responding to my questions. Do you think God would be displeased if a adult male pervert kidnaps, rapes and murders a young innocent prepubescent girl? Assuming God would be displeased by this act do you think God should smite the pervert before he commits this horrible act. Please don't say that God gave man free will and therefore God isn't responsible for stopping the pervert. Isn't God all powerful and loves children?
Nothing you said addressed my comments. I made no mention of "side" or "contest" I just agreed with you regarding why the quoting of scripture was ineffective.
A-S- looks like you need to take a sanity pill - you seem to be deliberately ignoring - or forgetting - your own posts. Look for your following words back there:
Quote
"strategy for your side"
Quote
"against a good opponent"
Are you trying to get folks to feel sorry for you?
CCCC, "I believe that our God is omniscient and omnipotent"
Do you believe that God can smite someone who displeases him? If you don't believe God would smite someone who displeases him is it ok if he gets one of his believers to smite them? A yes or no answer is ok, please don't quote Bible scripture.
I am not answering in terms of "displease", for what it might take to displease God to such an extent, and what His reason might be for smiting, are beyond my full comprehension.
But - do I "believe that God can smite someone"? Yes, I believe that He can. He is omnipotent.
"Is it OK if He gets one of His beleivers to smite them"? I am not equipped to pass judgement on what might be "OK" for God to do in achieving His purposes. He knows that - He is omniscient.
With regard to your request, rarely, if ever, do I quote Scripture verses/passages in these discussions. If a discussant is knowledgeable of the Scripture, there seems no need to quote. If the discussant is not knowledgeable of Scripture, such a quote is not likely to be useful or effective due to contextual matters - and disinterest.
CCCC, Thanks for responding to my questions. Do you think God would be displeased if a adult male pervert kidnaps, rapes and murders a young innocent prepubescent girl? Assuming God would be displeased by this act do you think God should smite the pervert before he commits this horrible act. Please don't say that God gave man free will and therefore God isn't responsible for stopping the pervert. Isn't God all powerful and loves children?
victoro, once again, I consider myself a poor judge of how God sees the individual behavior of persons, and what God should do about those acts.
You ask me to not say that "God gave man free will" and so one must wonder why you don't wish to hear/read that truth. Some of mankind commits really bad acts every day/hour/minute/second - which certainly seems to confirm the existence of such free will. On the other hand, we do not know of situations, possibly multitudinous, in which God sees fit to prevent bad actions.
That said, I feel that the crime you describe is a horrific act and know that I likely would be harsh in rendering punishment. But, no matter how much my reaction might align with what God would choose to do, any punishment I might render would in no way be Godly.
Life is characterized by choices, particularly about our behavior, and Christianity is characterized by even more and greater choices. Such is the exercise of free will. Christians are blessed with a Guide Book.
How many of what, and at what time of day were present at the opening of Jesus tomb?
I asked you for a dozen I think. You mentioned one. The one you chose to claim as a contradiction is accepted as real history by no less a scholar than Simon Greenleaf. Where are the other eleven?
There's about a dozen contradictions in my one example.
Should the seious student reject Simon Greenlief because you say there are "about a dozen contradictions in my one example."? Maybe I should ask for twenty. Could we get past this one with that many?
Again DIVINE revelation refers to revelation by legends and mythologies. If one accepts natural observation as DIVINE revelation then one might as well throw the Bible in the trash heap. Are you ready to do that? If so welcome aboard as a Deist.
I don't know how anyone who has studied Christianity could be so wrong. You show me you don't understand Christianity or its sources. I have never met a Christian who believes divine revelation comes through legends. That is exactly why the apocryphal gospels are spurious.
Yes, Christians see divine revelation in nature. And Christians see divine revelation in the scriptures. But Christians see the supreme divine revelation in the person of Christ.
According to your flawed thinking, if we accept that God reveals himself through nature, then not only could we throw the Bible on the trash heap, we could also discard Christ. No can do. Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation.
Steve.
You have just discovered the difference between a Deist and a Theist. The Holy Book of Legends and Mythologies has REVEALED to Christians God's Word and that a dead human Jew named Jesus is DIVINE.
Deists reject the the Holy Book of Legends and Mythologies and the Divinity of a dead human Jew named Jesus. Some Deists may look at Jesus as a Jewish rabbi with a pretty good moral code such as Thomas Jefferson, but that's it. Many Deists back in the day, 18th century, believed that if they followed the Jesus's moral code they could call themselves Christians. Hence, the reason I said I believed one could possible be a Christian Deist at least back in the day. I don't know of any Deist who would call themselves a Christian Deist today but there maybe be some that do. I know some who call themselves a Christian Witch so who knows.
Deists use human reason rather than DIVINE revelation for a religion and the study of nature rather than DIVINE revelation for theology.
Contrary to the typical Atheist, you will never see or hear me criticize another for his/her faith. I have great respect for those who hold their faith dear and honor it.
I am sometimes envious. It would be nice, at times, to believe there was someone out there who could solve all of my, or even the world's problems.
But alas, I can not, without evidence. And we all know evidence is completely contrary to faith.
The only time the word evidence is used in the New Testament, is in reference to faith. Faith is both substantial and evidenciary. See below.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The development of the Theory of Evolution began with observation, not a conclusion.
I don't think you read enough of the opinions of the proponents. In your case you start with evolution and then defend it by using evolution.
Who brought up evolution in this thread?? It wasn't me.
Who would believe that? Maybe you had better go back over your posts - you also said that you never mentioned "sides" or "contests/opponents". One who never lies does not have to worry about being caught in one.
By definition, your hpothesis means that all thought is determined by electro-chemical processes; material processes of cause and effect, if you will. Materialism (your hypothesis, or belief---the idea that the universe is comprised of nothing more than material causes and their effects) necessarily entails a denial of any such thing as the metaphysical freedom of the mind, freedom of thought that is. This entails the belief that "truth" is entirely illusory. For there to be such a thing as "truth" the mind must be free to distinguish the truth from error and materialism denies that possibility. A mind whose "thoughts" are the mere by-products (effects) of material causes is not free in the metaphysical sense to apprehend anything. Truth, in the materialis universe, is therefore an oxymoron. It is a self-contradiction. Materialists are therefore very much like that very first philosopher---the Cretan who said that all Cretans are liars!
Atheism is a dogmatic position that goes way beyond the evidence and is, in the final analysis, self-refuting.
I have not had opportunity to read further on this subject. But I have cogitated upon it at some length.
It occurs to me that the lower animals are seen to make choices, yet no one proclaims them to possess a soul.
I have watched one mare come to the mistaken belief that another mare was a danger to the first's foal. And saw her take action on that belief.
I do not think there was anything metaphysical about the situation.
We know there have been several species of humanoids upon this planet. That evidence is undeniable. Yet, as i understand, only one species can be made in the likeness of God. Only one of those species should have been endowed with the ability to make metaphysical choices.
But we know for a fact that more than one species made tools, created fire, and at least one interbred with Homo Sapiens.
People study skulls recovered from archeological digs. They can see evidence of evolution of the human brain over millennia through the depressions left inside the skull by the various lobes of the brain.
Those people can correlate the newly developed growth of a particular lobe in the ancient brain with a newly discovered talent in the human species. And they can correlate both of these occurrences to the appearance of a new gene in human DNA.
For example, cave art appeared at a particular point in history. Also at that point in history the human skull showed evidence of enlargement in the lobe of the brain which has been proven to be responsible for artistic expression. And also a new gene was identified in those remains which caused that development.
There are other examples relating to the use of tools, language, and the building of cities.
Considering these facts, I can only conclude that Human free choice and creativity are relegated to the field of the metaphysical only because the bio-mechanical workings of the human brain are not at this point fully understood.
Though out all of known history, man has encountered unexplainable phenomena. Those phenomena are typically explained away via myth, or as magic. Then Science advances, and the mystery of one phenomena after anther is explained away. And mythology moves on to attempt to explain the next misunderstood phenomena.
Based upon my knowledge at this point in time, I believe metaphysics to be nothing more than modern mythology.
I have not had opportunity to read further on this subject. But I have cogitated upon it at some length.
It occurs to me that the lower animals are seen to make choices, yet no one proclaims them to possess a soul.
I have watched one mare come to the mistaken belief that another mare was a danger to the first's foal. AND HOW DID YOU VERIFY HER "BELIEF"? And saw her take action on that belief. I do not think there was anything metaphysical about the situation. WHY?
We know there have been several species of humanoids upon this planet. DO "WE KNOW" THIS OR IS IT THEORETICAL? That evidence is undeniable. Yet, as i understand, only one species can be made in the likeness of God. Only one of those species should have been endowed with the ability to make metaphysical choices.
But we know for a fact that more than one species made tools, created fire, and at least one interbred with Homo Sapiens. DO "WE KNOW" THIS OR IS IT THEORETICAL?
People study skulls recovered from archeological digs. They can see evidence of evolution of the human brain over millennia through the depressions left inside the skull by the various lobes of the brain.
Those people can correlate the newly developed growth of a particular lobe in the ancient brain with a newly discovered talent in the human species. And they can correlate both of these occurrences to the appearance of a new gene in human DNA. SUCH "CORRELATION" IS QUITE WEAK - NOT ACCEPTED FACT.
For example, cave art appeared at a particular point in history. WHICH PARTICULAR POINT? OR IS THIS NOT SO "PARTICULAR"? Also at that point in history the human skull showed evidence of enlargement in the lobe of the brain which has been proven - (ACTUALLY "PROVEN" ?) to be responsible for artistic expression. And also a new gene was identified in those remains which caused (ACTUALLY "CAUSED"?) that development. THOSE SEEM LIKE SOME GREAT LEAPS OF FAITH REGARDING PROOF AND CAUSATION.
There are other examples relating to the use of tools, language, and the building of cities.
Considering these facts, I can only conclude that Human free choice and creativity are relegated to the field of the metaphysical only because the bio-mechanical workings of the human brain are not at this point fully understood.
Though out all of known history, man has encountered unexplainable phenomena. Those phenomena are typically explained away via myth, or as magic. Then Science advances, and the mystery of one phenomena after anther is explained away. And mythology moves on to attempt to explain the next misunderstood phenomena.
Based upon my knowledge at this point in time, I believe metaphysics to be nothing more than modern mythology. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE AT THIS POINT, GIVEN ONLY THE ABOVE, I AM THINKING THAT YOUR CONCLUSION IS ON A SANDY FOUNDATION.
I have not had opportunity to read further on this subject. But I have cogitated upon it at some length.
It occurs to me that the lower animals are seen to make choices, yet no one proclaims them to possess a soul.
I have watched one mare come to the mistaken belief that another mare was a danger to the first's foal. AND HOW DID YOU VERIFY HER "BELIEF"? And saw her take action on that belief. I do not think there was anything metaphysical about the situation. WHY?
We know there have been several species of humanoids upon this planet. DO "WE KNOW" THIS OR IS IT THEORETICAL? That evidence is undeniable. Yet, as i understand, only one species can be made in the likeness of God. Only one of those species should have been endowed with the ability to make metaphysical choices.
But we know for a fact that more than one species made tools, created fire, and at least one interbred with Homo Sapiens. DO "WE KNOW" THIS OR IS IT THEORETICAL?
People study skulls recovered from archeological digs. They can see evidence of evolution of the human brain over millennia through the depressions left inside the skull by the various lobes of the brain.
Those people can correlate the newly developed growth of a particular lobe in the ancient brain with a newly discovered talent in the human species. And they can correlate both of these occurrences to the appearance of a new gene in human DNA. SUCH "CORRELATION" IS QUITE WEAK - NOT ACCEPTED FACT.
For example, cave art appeared at a particular point in history. WHICH PARTICULAR POINT? OR IS THIS NOT SO "PARTICULAR"? Also at that point in history the human skull showed evidence of enlargement in the lobe of the brain which has been proven - (ACTUALLY "PROVEN" ?) to be responsible for artistic expression. And also a new gene was identified in those remains which caused (ACTUALLY "CAUSED"?) that development. THOSE SEEM LIKE SOME GREAT LEAPS OF FAITH REGARDING PROOF AND CAUSATION.
There are other examples relating to the use of tools, language, and the building of cities.
Considering these facts, I can only conclude that Human free choice and creativity are relegated to the field of the metaphysical only because the bio-mechanical workings of the human brain are not at this point fully understood.
Though out all of known history, man has encountered unexplainable phenomena. Those phenomena are typically explained away via myth, or as magic. Then Science advances, and the mystery of one phenomena after anther is explained away. And mythology moves on to attempt to explain the next misunderstood phenomena.
Based upon my knowledge at this point in time, I believe metaphysics to be nothing more than modern mythology. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE AT THIS POINT, GIVEN ONLY THE ABOVE, I AM THINKING THAT YOUR CONCLUSION IS ON A SANDY FOUNDATION.
I could lay the skulls out on the table in front of you, and still you would deny the evidence.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
So, you are telling me I haven't held 20-30 different exemplars of pre-homosapien skulls?
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
I've always thought we had ET, supernatural, cosmic influences on our human advancement down here on Earth. from cave man, to traveling hunters, to agricultural advancements, to small towns, large cities, and the technological advancements.
we've had an outside source of help.
did we evolve from gold-digging slaves to post-modern era space travelers? if so, just how, pray tell?
getting a breeding population of humans off the Earth and settled on a new Planet is a very important objective. I'm pretty sure the High Priests at NASA are working on the challenge.
Great Teachers such as Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lord Ganesha have incarnated for our human benefit.
but, so far no one has chosen to attempt to define the Human Species. at this point it remains indefinable.
I could lay the skulls out on the table in front of you, and still you would deny the evidence.
I would not deny the existence of any real skulls. However, those you mention would hardly provide any solid "evidence" rearding your sweeping contentions - so, no evidence to deny.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
So, you are telling me I haven't held 20-30 different exemplars of pre-homosapien skulls?
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
Sort of like a Christian huh?
Yup, only different.
Nothing different at all the same thing. Faith is faith. Or, superstition is superstition.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker.
Then they must be pretty insecure about the things they sing loudest about, eh?
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker.
Then they must be pretty insecure about the things they sing loudest about, eh?
Who gathers on Sunday to sing Hymms? Not Scientist.
I went to high school with a kid who probably had a skull like"C" or �D�. His nick name was �Hogjaws�. There is a guy who fights in the UFC who looks like the photos of Neanderthals. What does that prove? There are modern folks walking around with some unusual features. These evidences are evidence someone found some skulls or made up some skulls from a few fragments. They don�t prove anything.
Quote
Who gathers on Sunday to sing Hymms? Not Scientist.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker.
Then they must be pretty insecure about the things they sing loudest about, eh?
Who gathers on Sunday to sing Hymms? Not Scientist.
I could put the skulls of modern folks in front of you and you would see the variation is astounding. I have done cephalometric measurements on thousands. Most of the skulls, to which you allude, are little more than the extrapolation of a molar or bone fragment. Did you intend to include the Piltdown skull? ;-{>8
AS, seldom have I seen a man so devoted to his faith as you.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker.
Then they must be pretty insecure about the things they sing loudest about, eh?
Who gathers on Sunday to sing Hymms? Not Scientist.
Nope, their true believers rant all week long on the net. Need Sabbath rest.
I find faith to be a bit confusing. Not faith itself, exactly, but why it is perceived as such a desirable trait. Why is it so noble and laudable to have faith? In almost all other area's of life, we encourage critical thinking and rationale, but when it comes to religion it's suddenly preferable to have faith. We see even here on this forum that many consider those who have faith to be superior to those who do not. Why is that? What makes it such a desirable characteristic to be able to believe very strongly in something you can't prove one way or the other? I'm not in any way trying to put down people who have faith, it simply something that I can't quite get a grasp on. If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
xxclaro
I have not read anything past this point in the thread so surely someone else has answered this by now. But here is a stab at it.
Let's say that you were wrongly accused of a heinous crime. There were only two people involved in the crime, the perp and the victim. And you have no evidence to prove your innocence. There is circumstantial evidence to implicate you, however. Just play along for the sake of argument.
As the weeks before the trial mounted, you began to notice that some of your friends and even family members were distancing themselves from you. But there were a few souls that stood by your side through it all. They never wavered in their belief that you were innocent. They had no proof of innocence, just their faith in you.
At the trial it was proven by DNA evidence (or by whatever means) that you could not have committed the crime. Some of those who doubted you came back and offered their congratulations. Those who stood by you throughout it all never left your side. Now, tell me, how much value would you place on their faith in you?
If you have something to add in the way of evidence, I'm all ears.
I am only trying to point out that there is faith on both sides of this discussion. I actually find it amusing that people can be so smug about what they know, and can't create one hydrogen ion or one photon from nothing. I doubt consciousness will ever be explained let alone produced. I further find it astounding that though the greatest scientific minds and labs cannot produce anything reasonably called life, we are to believe that chemicals organized themselves to such a level. I just can't believe there is not an entity bigger than we. Where did the rules of the universe come from?
The prime motivator, IMO for the denial of God is not lack of evidence or rational basis for such belief, but the need to be at the head of the god chain. Eat of one of a myriad of fruits and you to shall be as God.
You explain a mystery by invoking a larger mystery.
You claim we are so complex that we need a creator, but how complex must be the mind you claim that created us? How complex would be the creator of this mind of even greater complexity.
Your God of the gaps explains nothing, and just creates an endless unexplained regression.
Your personal incredulity is not evidence of a creator. It's just evidence of your inability to scale and scope of what we are discussing.
So a god that punishes the ignorant is worthy of worship? ============
No, He's not.
I expect most will not understand this but I'll take a stab counselor: your implied premise that "this ignorance" is innocent is wrong, and thus so is your conclusion.
So a god that punishes the ignorant is worthy of worship? ============
No, He's not.
I expect most will not understand this but I'll take a stab counselor: your implied premise that "this ignorance" is innocent is wrong, and thus so is your conclusion.
Okay. My understanding of most Christian Theology at the basics is that all fall short of grace and are sinners. Ones only redemption is through the blood and sacrifice that Christ shed on the cross.
To receive this redemption the only path is to accept Christ as savior and repent ones sins.
However, if one is not aware of this path and have never heard 'the word' are you saying that they not will or will not be punished in the afterlife?
So if these guys die tomorrow are they condemned through their own ignorance?
Can you perpetuate yourself eternally (if that is even a concept anyone can truly understand)?
There is something bigger than you. Why deny it?
The God who created us is beyond your comprehension and by his own accounting, outside the realm of time. How big is that?
My God is not of gaps but of totality, which is beyond even you in every way. Why deny it?
If it is not evidence of being beyond your personal scale and scope, the world awaits your omniscience. Just saying.
So, how do you make an electron from nothing, including the laws of the universe?
Is there something bigger then me? If by that you mean my family, my Service, my country, the totality of the universe, of course there is much in life greater then myself. But I do not believe these are the things you are trying to equate with something bigger.
Your "evidence" that God called himself into existence and perpetuates himself for eternity, beyond comprehension, scale, and scope. You claim not only to know that God did it, of all the thousands of Gods, you claim to know exactly which one did it.
I, however, can admit that I do not know how an electron is formed. We are making progress researching this question, and know much about the early universe, but we still do not know for sure.
So when you compare the difference in our positions, who is filled with hubis?
Okay. My understanding of most Christian Theology at the basics is that all fall short of grace and are sinners. Ones only redemption is through the blood and sacrifice that Christ shed on the cross.
To receive this redemption the only path is to accept Christ as savior and repent ones sins.
However, if one is not aware of this path and have never heard 'the word' are you saying that they not will or will not be punished in the afterlife?
So if these guys die tomorrow are they condemned through their own ignorance?
1 Thessalonians 1:7b-10a
"the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed"
When the judgment comes God will give those who love Him more reason to love Him. For those who don't love Him He will give them more reason not to love Him.
His ways are not our ways. I have difficulty with the idea He does not seem to care about the second generation. Those who have never heard had g-g-g-g-g-great grand parrents who knew God. We are, after all, decendants of Noah.
I find faith to be a bit confusing. Not faith itself, exactly, but why it is perceived as such a desirable trait. Why is it so noble and laudable to have faith? In almost all other area's of life, we encourage critical thinking and rationale, but when it comes to religion it's suddenly preferable to have faith. We see even here on this forum that many consider those who have faith to be superior to those who do not. Why is that? What makes it such a desirable characteristic to be able to believe very strongly in something you can't prove one way or the other? I'm not in any way trying to put down people who have faith, it simply something that I can't quite get a grasp on. If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
xxclaro
I have not read anything past this point in the thread so surely someone else has answered this by now. But here is a stab at it.
Let's say that you were wrongly accused of a heinous crime. There were only two people involved in the crime, the perp and the victim. And you have no evidence to prove your innocence. There is circumstantial evidence to implicate you, however. Just play along for the sake of argument.
As the weeks before the trial mounted, you began to notice that some of your friends and even family members were distancing themselves from you. But there were a few souls that stood by your side through it all. They never wavered in their belief that you were innocent. They had no proof of innocence, just their faith in you.
At the trial it was proven by DNA evidence (or by whatever means) that you could not have committed the crime. Some of those who doubted you came back and offered their congratulations. Those who stood by you throughout it all never left your side. Now, tell me, how much value would you place on their faith in you?
Interesting scenario Landrum, thanks. I suppose its hard to say how I would react, until it actually happened. Still, the right reaction, in my mind, would be to not hold their doubts against them. My wife likes watching crime and forensics shows, and many times you see family members or friends absolutely refuse to believe the person accused could have done what they are accused of. They have full faith, one could say. Often, they are proved wrong. Can one really fault someone for having doubts? It is impossible to know the mind of even a mere human, which always leaves room for doubt. I don't think its fair to hold that against someone. To know the mind of a God would then be completely impossible, if we cannot even know fully the mind of those closest to us. I realize everyone is different and their minds work in different ways,which will cause different reactions to certain situations. Some people will expect you to have full faith in them and never doubt anything they say, responding negatively if any doubts are displayed. A reasonable person, I think, allows for some doubts, especially if they can see that there is evidence that puts them in a negative light. A God who is all knowing should then certainly be able to understand a mere human having certain doubts and questions, without needing to condemn said human to eternal torment for not having complete,unquestioning faith. But, that's just my opinion, I don't really expect anyone else to necessarily see things just as I do. I do enjoy reading others opinions and thoughts on the matter though, so thanks for putting that up.
To know the mind of a God would then be completely impossible
1 Corinthians 2:11 "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."
Can you perpetuate yourself eternally (if that is even a concept anyone can truly understand)?
There is something bigger than you. Why deny it?
The God who created us is beyond your comprehension and by his own accounting, outside the realm of time. How big is that?
My God is not of gaps but of totality, which is beyond even you in every way. Why deny it?
If it is not evidence of being beyond your personal scale and scope, the world awaits your omniscience. Just saying.
So, how do you make an electron from nothing, including the laws of the universe?
Is there something bigger then me? If by that you mean my family, my Service, my country, the totality of the universe, of course there is much in life greater then myself. But I do not believe these are the things you are trying to equate with something bigger.
Your "evidence" that God called himself into existence and perpetuates himself for eternity, beyond comprehension, scale, and scope. You claim not only to know that God did it, of all the thousands of Gods, you claim to know exactly which one did it.
I, however, can admit that I do not know how an electron is formed. We are making progress researching this question, and know much about the early universe, but we still do not know for sure.
So when you compare the difference in our positions, who is filled with hubis?
You have nothing to offer outside the confines of space, time, conservation of matter and energy, yet you so assiduously ridicule those who do. Remember, when you figure out how to make an electron from nothing, you will be violating the laws of science. Just saying. What drives you to offer a void where others find hope?
I will leave it at this, but when you can make water instantly into wine, heal all manner of incurable diseases and raise others and yourself from the dead, be sure to send me a PM. We can both bypass the discussion about being sinless, I am sure. ;-{>8
Making an electron out of nothing probably has something to do with Quantum Mechanics, and a Universe with a total energy of zero.
As for your continued appeal to a god of the gaps, I see no reason to accept such a self refuting claim, for every mystery you fill with God, leaves an even bigger question, What made God?
Water to wine, raising the dead....show me the evidence....but then again, you have none.
I find faith to be a bit confusing. Not faith itself, exactly, but why it is perceived as such a desirable trait. Why is it so noble and laudable to have faith? In almost all other area's of life, we encourage critical thinking and rationale, but when it comes to religion it's suddenly preferable to have faith. We see even here on this forum that many consider those who have faith to be superior to those who do not. Why is that? What makes it such a desirable characteristic to be able to believe very strongly in something you can't prove one way or the other? I'm not in any way trying to put down people who have faith, it simply something that I can't quite get a grasp on. If I think about it rationally from a human standpoint, it seems to me to be a tool that would be used in an attempt to control people, by painting those with faith as good people and those without as bad.
xxclaro
I have not read anything past this point in the thread so surely someone else has answered this by now. But here is a stab at it.
Let's say that you were wrongly accused of a heinous crime. There were only two people involved in the crime, the perp and the victim. And you have no evidence to prove your innocence. There is circumstantial evidence to implicate you, however. Just play along for the sake of argument.
As the weeks before the trial mounted, you began to notice that some of your friends and even family members were distancing themselves from you. But there were a few souls that stood by your side through it all. They never wavered in their belief that you were innocent. They had no proof of innocence, just their faith in you.
At the trial it was proven by DNA evidence (or by whatever means) that you could not have committed the crime. Some of those who doubted you came back and offered their congratulations. Those who stood by you throughout it all never left your side. Now, tell me, how much value would you place on their faith in you?
Interesting scenario Landrum, thanks. I suppose its hard to say how I would react, until it actually happened. Still, the right reaction, in my mind, would be to not hold their doubts against them. My wife likes watching crime and forensics shows, and many times you see family members or friends absolutely refuse to believe the person accused could have done what they are accused of. They have full faith, one could say. Often, they are proved wrong. Can one really fault someone for having doubts? It is impossible to know the mind of even a mere human, which always leaves room for doubt. I don't think its fair to hold that against someone. To know the mind of a God would then be completely impossible, if we cannot even know fully the mind of those closest to us. I realize everyone is different and their minds work in different ways,which will cause different reactions to certain situations. Some people will expect you to have full faith in them and never doubt anything they say, responding negatively if any doubts are displayed. A reasonable person, I think, allows for some doubts, especially if they can see that there is evidence that puts them in a negative light. A God who is all knowing should then certainly be able to understand a mere human having certain doubts and questions, without needing to condemn said human to eternal torment for not having complete,unquestioning faith. But, that's just my opinion, I don't really expect anyone else to necessarily see things just as I do. I do enjoy reading others opinions and thoughts on the matter though, so thanks for putting that up.
I understand your concerns. And in no way was my little scenario a correlation with the faith that one has with God. Nor was it meant to represent the way HE deals with people whose faith wavers. It was just one example of how faith might be given and interpreted by a human being.
I will say this, and by the way, it is not aimed at you. I am a Christian believer. One thing that a lot of people do not understand is that to be a believer is not choosing the easy path. As humans, we are filled with doubts and concerns that plague us our entire lives. Each and ever day it is a struggle to maintain one's faith. Those who tell you otherwise are either fibbing or lack imagination.
I think that God fully understands the human condition and knows that we will have dips and valleys along our ways. Perhaps He puts some of those in our way. Who knows? But to be a Christian is an every day struggle and not an easy path at all. Maintaining faith is a full time job.
Humans struggle with the concept of time. Ask anyone to define it and they will stumble over their words. He does not have that problem. Our lives are so important to us and the clock is ticking and worries over work, health, you name it, assault us from every angle.....and the clock keeps ticking. Life is a pressure cooker. Faith is work. It's hard. Being a Christian isn't for sissies.
With all that said, I do believe that God loves us and cares deeply for us and our worries as well. We just can't wrap our heads around time and if we do stray but come back, He welcomes us as if we never left at all.
My words are a feeble attempt to explain some of my thoughts. Not enough coffee in the system yet, I suppose.
Agnostics use some emotion in their thinking,Atheists use only the facts.
You mean facts that can be scientifically proven. Where did science come from? Did it come from man or God? If you say it came from man because there is no God, then where did men come from? Oh yes, an explosion that created life? How is that scientific. There is no proof. Science depends on truths that are predictable and repeatable. Show me. Recreate life for me. Then I will believe in your 'facts'.
....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....
Summing up: You are a broken record. By "evidence," in every case you mean scientific and empirical evidence. That view makes a god of science. You overlook the fact that we use other kinds of evidence all the time, and even scientific evidence is lacking conclusiveness. Inconclusive is not proof of anything. I don't know whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist. You only argue the agnostic position but you do it with the insistence of the atheist.
You think all the evidence proves the non-existence of God, so you put yourself in the position of judge and prosecutor, overruling any evidence but what you introduce. You require someone who believes in God to use that evidence to prove his position. The trouble with that is that then you become the jury -- and you declare yourself winner of the debate. The truth is that no believer needs to prove God's existence. He only cares to show you that you do not need to come to the conclusion you have reached. If someone could convince you -- with only the evidence you lay on the table -- that God exists, that he created everything, that he is sovereign, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he's coming back, none of that would gain you one millimeter of standing with God.
When this becomes a debate over who is smarter, which your previous ad hominum arguments suggest you think it is, you apparently think the question of the existence of God is a question that only the people you regard as most intelligent have any real suasion. The problem with that is that lots of believing people are smarter than you are. That's no problem for you -- you simply fall back on an ad hominem argument. Being smart is irrelevant. Chances are you're not even the smartest person on a discussion forum. You lost this debate a long time ago.
I once dated a lady who didn't believe in God, yet at certain times she would loudly say proclaim, "Oh God, oh God" with maybe a few 'yes, yes' words added in for effect.
I have also known men who didn't believe in God or Damnation who would loudly proclaim otherwise after busting a thumb or some such.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when COMPLETENESS comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
For NOW we see only a reflection as in a mirror; THEN we shall see face to face. NOW I know in part; THEN I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
This question is like asking to whom is the bachelor married? Or who was that dead man speaking to? It makes no sense. God is Infinite! He didn't make Himself. He Is.
For those who depend on facts to prove Gods existence.
You mean facts that can be scientifically proven. Where did science come from? Did it come from man or God? If you say it came from man because there is no God, then where did men come from? Oh yes, an explosion that created life? How is that scientific. There is no proof. Science depends on truths that are predictable and repeatable. Show me. Recreate life for me. Then I will believe in your 'facts'.
....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....show me the evidence....
Summing up: You are a broken record. By "evidence," in every case you mean scientific and empirical evidence. That view makes a god of science. You overlook the fact that we use other kinds of evidence all the time, and even scientific evidence is lacking conclusiveness. Inconclusive is not proof of anything. I don't know whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist. You only argue the agnostic position but you do it with the insistence of the atheist.
You think all the evidence proves the non-existence of God, so you put yourself in the position of judge and prosecutor, overruling any evidence but what you introduce. You require someone who believes in God to use that evidence to prove his position. The trouble with that is that then you become the jury -- and you declare yourself winner of the debate. The truth is that no believer needs to prove God's existence. He only cares to show you that you do not need to come to the conclusion you have reached. If someone could convince you -- with only the evidence you lay on the table -- that God exists, that he created everything, that he is sovereign, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he's coming back, none of that would gain you one millimeter of standing with God.
When this becomes a debate over who is smarter, which your previous ad hominum arguments suggest you think it is, you apparently think the question of the existence of God is a question that only the people you regard as most intelligent have any real suasion. The problem with that is that lots of believing people are smarter than you are. That's no problem for you -- you simply fall back on an ad hominem argument. Being smart is irrelevant. Chances are you're not even the smartest person on a discussion forum. You lost this debate a long time ago.
Steve.
I've never claimed to be the smarted person on this forum. Now you are just making stuff up. As for my alleged ad hominem, since when is a sharp example or a request for evidence an ad hominem?
As for your opening statement, it's essentially an admission that you have no evidence.
As for your whole court analogy, it's absurd. Because my position is different then yours I'm not allowed to make up my own mind? To whom am I to defer as Judge and Jury, your preacher? As for "the winner", it's not for you, or I to decide that. It's for each reader to decide for themselves.
But then, in the end, you so eloquently make my point:
Originally Posted by Everyday Hunter
The truth is that no believer needs to prove God's existence.
For those who depend on facts to prove Gods existence.
You mean facts that can be scientifically proven. Where did science come from? Did it come from man or God? If you say it came from man because there is no God, then where did men come from? Oh yes, an explosion that created life? How is that scientific. There is no proof. Science depends on truths that are predictable and repeatable. Show me. Recreate life for me. Then I will believe in your 'facts'.
Eyeball, I didn't ask for facts, I asked for evidence.
In scientific terms evidence supports facts, and large collection of facts support Scientific Theories, which is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.
So, to be clear, I'm not asking for facts, just evidence. If you can provide some real evidence, then perhaps we can work that into facts, and a Theory of God with explanatory power, but in order to do this, we need to start with some evidence.
As for the origin of Science, science is an outgrowth of mans quest for knowledge. This began in antiquity with Philosophy. In the 1600's we get "natural philosophy", which today we call Science, from the Latin for knowledge.
As for the origins of life, we have a Theory of Evolution, but not a Theory of Abiogenesis. We have some evidence regarding how molecules and proteins form, and even how molecules form in space. It's only been 400 years since we progressed past alchemy to begin developing chemistry and an understanding of the microscopic world, and it may be several hundred years before we have a Theory of Abiogenesis.
What would not be scientific would be to stop investigation this line of inquiry and substitute a Bronze Age Jewish sky spirit as the answer.
This question is like asking to whom is the bachelor married? Or who was that dead man speaking to? It makes no sense. God is Infinite! He didn't make Himself. He Is.
We are so complex we require a creator, but the most complex being ever, does not?
A-S- please don't make the mistake of thinking that many folks here are at all concerned about what "makes no sense" to you personally. That is your problem, not theirs.
Your posts indicate to some that you are stuck in a small closed loop - or - is it a tight downward spiral? To an extent, I am surprised with the patience and effort extended to you in this thread. I see that as good behavior toward another person, but now feel that you have been given quite a bit more attention than deserved - particularly if your primary goal is to get attention.
Whether you are seeking argument, affirmation, confirmation, or simple attention - the mistake has been mine. Bye.
A-S- please don't make the mistake of thinking that many folks here are at all concerned about what "makes no sense" to you personally. That is your problem, not theirs.
Your posts indicate to some that you are stuck in a small closed loop - or - is it a tight downward spiral? To an extent, I am surprised with the patience and effort extended to you in this thread. I see that as good behavior toward another person, but now feel that you have been given quite a bit more attention than deserved - particularly if your primary goal is to get attention.
Whether you are seeking argument, affirmation, confirmation, or simple attention - the mistake has been mine. Bye.
CCCC I enjoy a good stimulating debate.
My last post to you contained 14 hominid skulls in series. It's part of the "small closed loop" in the realm of evidence...that realm you seem unable to penetrate.
You generally can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Faith and objective reasoning are quite frequently at odds due to the nature of both.
We are so complex we require a creator, but the most complex being ever, does not?
That is what makes no sense.
You may not believe it or understand it, but you can�t think beyond yourself. You are apparently not able to comprehend Infinite Intelligent Energy. So far the only infinite I see you believing in is infinite nothing becoming something which is contrary to the cause and effect of science. An effect cannot be greater than its cause, and yet your faith wants desperately for this to be the case. This concept is supposedly natural; which it is not. It would be beyond supernatural. Something you are dreadfully trying to get away from.
Paper, invented by the Chinese, so, yes, relevant to this thread.
Of course I can think beyond myself. An expanding universe 13.7 billion years old with billions of stars in billions of galaxies is certainly beyond myself. If anything, this narrative surpasses your infinite God who only created the world 6k years ago. As for "nothing" becoming something, well you might need to take a further look at quantum physics. This is a very strange world that often defies our normal conceptions of the physics.
As for your assetion that an effect cannot be greater then it's cause, just look at a string of dominos. One is pushed over, an it pushed over 2 then 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.
When you consider the condition previous to the universe...a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable...the instability was not at just a point, so one the domino was pushed, inflation occurred quickly.
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero. When creating a universe, you need three things, energy, matter, and space. Since matter is just a form of energy, we really only need 2 things, energy and space. With energy being positive, and space the reservoir for negative energy, we now have the condition for a universe from nothing, with a total energy of zero, which is, best we can tell at this point, the total energy of the universe.
Paper, invented by the Chinese, so, yes, relevant to this thread.
Of course I can think beyond myself. An expanding universe 13.7 billion years old with billions of stars in billions of galaxies is certainly beyond myself. If anything, this narrative surpasses your infinite God who only created the world 6k years ago. As for "nothing" becoming something, well you might need to take a further look at quantum physics. This is a very strange world that often defies our normal conceptions of the physics.
As for your assetion that an effect cannot be greater then it's cause, just look at a string of dominos. One is pushed over, an it pushed over 2 then 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.
When you consider the condition previous to the universe...a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable...the instability was not at just a point, so one the domino was pushed, inflation occurred quickly.
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero. When creating a universe, you need three things, energy, matter, and space. Since matter is just a form of energy, we really only need 2 things, energy and space. With energy being positive, and space the reservoir for negative energy, we now have the condition for a universe from nothing, with a total energy of zero, which is, best we can tell at this point, the total energy of the universe.
No God, no supernatural, just physics.
And you haven't even brought dark matter and dark energy into the picture.
a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable
No matter how much you want nothing to be something, nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist so nothing can be stable or unstable.
With the dominos illustration you are neglecting the hours spent by a much greater intelligence setting them up to accomplish a preplanned organized desired effect.
Your faith is admirable, but misplaced in hoping nothing can do anything.
In this post you are not starting with nothing. You are starting with unintelligent space; which Einstien and others have said is a fabric. On the otherhand Creationists start by accepting the basic premise of science: Cause and effect. The Creator, possessing all energy and intelligence, called space and time into being by His Power.
Quote
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero.
That was something you suggested. I don't believe the total effect must be zero.
a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable
No matter how much you want nothing to be something, nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist so nothing can be stable or unstable.
With the dominos illustration you are neglecting the hours spent by a much greater intelligence setting them up to accomplish a preplanned organized desired effect.
Your faith is admirable, but misplaced in hoping nothing can do anything.
In this post you are not starting with nothing. You are starting with unintelligent space; which Einstien and others have said is a fabric. On the otherhand Creationists start by accepting the basic premise of science: Cause and effect. The Creator, possessing all energy and intelligence, called space and time into being by His Power.
Quote
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero.
That was something you suggested. I don't believe the total effect must be zero.
Paper, invented by the Chinese, so, yes, relevant to this thread.
Of course I can think beyond myself. An expanding universe 13.7 billion years old with billions of stars in billions of galaxies is certainly beyond myself. If anything, this narrative surpasses your infinite God who only created the world 6k years ago. As for "nothing" becoming something, well you might need to take a further look at quantum physics. This is a very strange world that often defies our normal conceptions of the physics.
As for your assetion that an effect cannot be greater then it's cause, just look at a string of dominos. One is pushed over, an it pushed over 2 then 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.
When you consider the condition previous to the universe...a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable...the instability was not at just a point, so one the domino was pushed, inflation occurred quickly.
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero. When creating a universe, you need three things, energy, matter, and space. Since matter is just a form of energy, we really only need 2 things, energy and space. With energy being positive, and space the reservoir for negative energy, we now have the condition for a universe from nothing, with a total energy of zero, which is, best we can tell at this point, the total energy of the universe.
No God, no supernatural, just physics.
Yea right, the Universe from nothing... here is another comment regarding Krauss:
Krauss�s volume was much praised when it got out in January, but more recently has been slammed by David Albert in the New York Times:
�The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.�
That�s harsh, and Krauss understandably doesn�t like what Albert wrote. Still, I wonder if Krauss is justified in referring to Albert as a �moronic philosopher,� considering that the latter is not only a highly respected philosopher of physics at Columbia University, but also holds a PhD in theoretical physics. I didn�t think Rockefeller University (where Albert got his degree) gave out PhD�s to morons, but I could be wrong.
a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable
No matter how much you want nothing to be something, nothing is nothing. Nothing does not exist so nothing can be stable or unstable.
With the dominos illustration you are neglecting the hours spent by a much greater intelligence setting them up to accomplish a preplanned organized desired effect.
Your faith is admirable, but misplaced in hoping nothing can do anything.
In this post you are not starting with nothing. You are starting with unintelligent space; which Einstien and others have said is a fabric. On the otherhand Creationists start by accepting the basic premise of science: Cause and effect. The Creator, possessing all energy and intelligence, called space and time into being by His Power.
Quote
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero.
That was something you suggested. I don't believe the total effect must be zero.
Who caused the creator?
God is eternal. He always was, He is and will always be. Yep that is hard for me to comprehend.
This question is like asking to whom is the bachelor married? Or who was that dead man speaking to? It makes no sense. God is Infinite! He didn't make Himself. He Is.
We are so complex we require a creator, but the most complex being ever, does not?
That is what makes no sense.
Nope, makes perfect sense. God is God and He is eternal. Just because you and I can't fully understand it does not make it false.
If one cannot undertand someting, does that make it false or non-existent? Certainly not.
It is interesting that this question even matters. Choose your side and get on with it... Why what others think should really matter not. Again, why there is not a "Religion" place for those that care here boggles my mind. I have never sat around the campfire discussing religion and my best hunting mate is a devout, hard core "Christian".
![[Linked Image]](http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/msg/site/9/el/thumbsup_2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://cdn.styleforum.net/5/52/52e196e1_lighten_up_francis.jpeg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg)