A too funny response..?

[wet1]

Ekimclaw...

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Did you even read my posts?

I reverse that question in your direction Ekimklaw!
To make it even "worse", I will state that humans are in nature, at the very bottoms of their hearts, bi-sexual.

That means you too, Ekimklaw!

(this is not an arguement, this is a statement and don't you forget it.)

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Ekimklaw, the point is that these are not homosexual behaviours. They're common among heterosexuals as well. Personally, I think that whatever is most common is normal, whether it is moral or not. However you're free to decide that on your own.

If these things you stated aren't homosexual behaviours but rather general sinful sexual activities, then you can't say homosexuality is immoral, or at least not in that context. If you did, you'd need to say "all sexuality is immoral" (which would presumably include my fake sexual affiliation with snakes. although the idea of masturbating with dolphins by rubbing their foot-and-a-half-long prehensile penises with my hands does arouse me some when I think of it... lol. "curl your penis around my finger", anybody? www.dolphinsex.org )

Now, let's say some weirdo woman gave herself a SIEMEN enema before doing... whatever it is... with her partner. If she squirted siemen directly into the vagina of her friend (although feces might not be very good... err...), perhaps this would not be immoral as she could become pregnant?

And if sex that won't reproduce is immoral, then isn't it immoral to have sex if you don't get a baby out of it? And doesn't that happen a lot?

 

[Teg]

men committing shameful acts with men

That exemplifies how unintuitive the bible is. What is shameful? Gay people are obviously not ashamed of their activities. I always thought the test for shame was internal by nature.

 

[James R]

Ekimklaw:

Did you even read my post. I gave two reasons why your argument is flawed. In summary they were:

1. The acts you mentioned are not linked to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality. Hence, to condemn those acts as sinful (as is your wont) is to condemn heterosexuality as much as homosexuality.

2. Homosexuality is not equivalent to a set of sex acts. Therefore, condemning particular sex acts in no way reflects on homosexuals.

I also asked you a question, which you ignored.

So, want to try for a third time and explain to me why <b>homosexuality</b> is a sin?

 

[Ekimklaw]

Originally posted by Xev
Elkimlaw:

Dude, chill. It seemed more argument than debate. I really don't see how you can debate this sort of thing. I have nothing against argument, and I did not mean that to be derogetory.

As for my comment re:interest, yeah, that was low. But not an ad hominem attack. Merely a bit of teasing.

Sorry. I tease a lot of people that way. Guess I forgot that you are more disturbed by this sort of thing than my friends and acquaintances are.

Sorry.

Cris: Thanks.

Xev,

I never know when you are being malicious or friendly. Maybe you are being maliciously friendly . Of course tone of voice and body language do not come across in a post so sometimes its hard to tell.

I often don't know whether to grin or bust out the long knives.

-Mike

 

[Ekimklaw]

Originally posted by James R
Ekimklaw:

Did you even read my post. I gave two reasons why your argument is flawed. In summary they were:

1. The acts you mentioned are not linked to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality. Hence, to condemn those acts as sinful (as is your wont) is to condemn heterosexuality as much as homosexuality.

2. Homosexuality is not equivalent to a set of sex acts. Therefore, condemning particular sex acts in no way reflects on homosexuals.

I also asked you a question, which you ignored.

So, want to try for a third time and explain to me why <b>homosexuality</b> is a sin?

James R,

Right now you're just trying to bug me. Are you going to keep asking me this question until I say "Homosexuality is normal"? Is that what you intend? Geez... do you want me to preach to you? I cannot answer this question without getting into theology. Asking me to divorce my opinion that homosexuality is wrong from my religious beliefs is an unfair request. My religious beliefs are essentially why I believe that homosexuality is wrong. You are making an unfair request. I am not going to preach to you here. You all have asked me not to, and so I won't. Suffice it to say I believe the Bible is the word of God. The word of God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore I believe it is wrong. In addition to that I have given you detailed (and disgusting) examples of gay sex. This does not formulate my ONLY basis for believing that Homosexuality is wrong. It amounts to a kind of vindication that my opinion is right.

You are goading me into bashing homosexuals which I will not do. I have detailed common "gay" sex practices and said that homosexuality is wrong as a lifestyle.

Now, I will answer your questions and assertions once again...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jame R wrote:
a sexual preference does not depend on any particular sexual act. A person may be homosexual and never have any form of sex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sex act is a result of one's preference, not vice versa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R wrote:
If that was the case, would you still consider that person to be sinful [if they never had sex]? I wonder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. I believe anyone who has unnatural desires unrepentantly and without concience is sinful. Why? Because the Bible strictly forbids it. That is the best I can do James R... I know it won't be what you want to hear, but there it is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R wrote:
The acts you mentioned are not linked to homosexuality any more than to heterosexuality. Hence, to condemn those acts as sinful (as is your wont) is to condemn heterosexuality as much as homosexuality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. I condemn those acts [fisting, scat, rimming, golden showers, fellatio, anal intercourse, etc.] as wrong no matter who practices them. These acts are not the MAIN reason I condemn homosexuality. I condemn homosexuality because the Bible proclaims that it is wrong. The acts I mentioned merely confirm the depravity of the "gay" lifestyle. If heteros do it to, then they in my opinion are sinning as well. Those are despicable acts. Nothing you say will convince me that two people smearing each other with feces :bugeye: is normal. Sorry...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R wrote:
Homosexuality is not equivalent to a set of sex acts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right I agree. It is a sinful desire. The acts of sex are merely the fruits (no pun intended ) of said desire.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James R wrote:
Therefore, condemning particular sex acts in no way reflects on homosexuals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't? Says who. Since when are we not responsible for what we do? We always have someone to answer to. If not God, then society.

Okay?

And please stop asking me to re-answer and re-answer these questions. It is getting tiresome. And James (or anyone else) If you want all the preaching and scriptures and theology, send me a private message. I won't use this board to prosyletize. Thanks.

-Mike

 

[Ekimklaw]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB-GIL Trans-global wrote:
Ekimklaw, the point is that these are not homosexual behaviours. They're common among heterosexuals as well. Personally, I think that whatever is most common is normal, whether it is moral or not. However you're free to decide that on your own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize these acts are not strictly limited to gays. I never did say they were. However these things are done by unrepentantly sinful people of all stripes. It is one thing to do this privately among consenting adults. It is quite another to take said behaviors and publicly try to have them redefined by the general populace as "normal". This is mostly what I disagree with.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB-GIL Trans-global wrote:
If these things you stated aren't homosexual behaviours but rather general sinful sexual activities, then you can't say homosexuality is immoral, or at least not in that context. If you did, you'd need to say "all sexuality is immoral"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One clarification Mark, I would say that "certain kinds of [not all] sexuality is immoral" in my opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB-GIL Trans-global wrote:
Now, let's say some weirdo woman gave herself a SIEMEN enema before doing... whatever it is... with her partner. If she squirted siemen directly into the vagina of her friend (although feces might not be very good... err...), perhaps this would not be immoral as she could become pregnant?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If she did this privately that is between her and her sex partner. I still think it is immoral and sinful. But the REAL offensive thing is trying to make me proclaim this act is "normal" when it clearly isn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GB-GIL Trans-global wrote:
And if sex that won't reproduce is immoral, then isn't it immoral to have sex if you don't get a baby out of it? And doesn't that happen a lot?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most if not all Catholics believe this. However, as a protestant, I do not believe this. I believe that sex is a loving covenant between a husband and his wife. If they choose to have kids wonderful. If they choose to simply enjoy the beauty of intercourse within the bonds of matrimony that's good too.

-Mike

 

[Ekimklaw]

Re: Ekimclaw...

Originally posted by Banshee


I reverse that question in your direction Ekimklaw!
To make it even "worse", I will state that humans are in nature, at the very bottoms of their hearts, bi-sexual.

That means you too, Ekimklaw!

(this is not an arguement, this is a statement and don't you forget it.)

I think you mean "buy sexual"?

-Mike

 

[James R]

Ekimklaw:

Thankyou for your reply. It is quite reasonable, and I understand completely that your disapproval of homosexuality is entirely due to your religion. That is not uncommon. All I wanted to do was to prod you into thinking about it a little outside your comfort zone. Having achieved that, my work here is done.

Essentially, you've admitted that the only reason you condemn homosexuality (as opposed to certain sex acts) as sinful is because of the authority of the church and the bible. God tells you it is wrong, and so it must be. That is fine, as far as it goes. Coupled with your tolerance of the thing you find sinful, it is a harmless belief. I would only take further issue with you if you advocated harm to or discrimination against homosexuals on the basis of your belief. In that case, your actions would be going against other tenets of your own faith, and would be inconsistent with your avowed philosophy.

To finish off, I need to reply to a couple of comments you made...

<i>Are you going to keep asking me this question until I say "Homosexuality is normal"?</i>

What is "normal"? If by that you mean shear weight of numbers, then homosexuals, being a minority, are abnormal. But I don't think that's what you mean. I think you mean to imply "unnatural", and in fact you say that below. As other people have pointed out, homosexuality is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, so it cannot be "unnatural" in that sense.

<i>I have detailed common "gay" sex practices and said that homosexuality is wrong as a lifestyle.</i>

I have told you that the practices you outlined are not, by any means, exclusively "gay" practices. You tar heterosexuals with the same brush. Secondly, I get the hint that you consider there is a particular "lifestyle" associated with being homosexual. In fact, homosexual lifestyles are as diverse as hetereosexual ones. A person is not equivalent to his or her sexual preference.

<i>The sex act is a result of one's preference, not vice versa.</i>

The sex act is the result of one's preference for that sex act, not the result of whether one is homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[Ekimklaw]

Thanks James. I was beginning to feel like I was beating my head against the wall.

As you said, I am not intolerant of gay people. My family had a VERY gay man as a friend long ago. He was an illustrator for an advertising firm where my father worked. Interestingly, I later became an illustrator myself. I was quite impressed with his artistic abilities. He was nice. Lived a monogomous life with a male partner. I did not then, nor do I now hate him. He was very nice.

I currently do not know anybody who is gay. But if I did, I would treat them with courtesy, respect and dignity as I would anybody.

Enjoyed the debate James, even if you did hit a hot button or two.

-Mike

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

…belief can cause determination, faith can be used as a catalyst for knowledge.

No quite the reverse.

If one states that they believe that something is true then what is the motivation, incentive, or catalyst for them to want to search for this truth that they believe they have already found?

Theists aren’t searching for truth since they believe they have already found it, their god is the answer and the truth.

Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

No quite the reverse.

If one states that they believe that something is true then what is the motivation, incentive, or catalyst for them to want to search for this truth that they believe they have already found?

Theists aren’t searching for truth since they believe they have already found it, their god is the answer and the truth.

Cris

Cris,

You are looking at it only in one view. God is the ultimate answer, but one can seek other answers through science, etc., I'm a theist that searches for truth, for God, I have not found God yet and yes, I do believe in God.

Say some believe in freedom, some will fight for what they believe, now apply this type of thinking to learning.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

God is the ultimate answer,

If you believe this then why look any further?

..but one can seek other answers through science, etc.,

Your two quotes appear contradictory. If you believe as true that a god is the ultimate answer then there can’t be alternative answers. If you suspect that there might be alternative answers then you clearly can’t believe that a god is the ultimate answer. An ultimate answer infers that there are no alternatives.

But really what answers are you talking about? Please be specific.

I'm a theist that searches for truth, for God, I have not found God yet and yes, I do believe in God.

You cannot both believe that a god exists and at the same doubt that he exists which is implied by searching. If you believe he exists then why search?

Say some believe in freedom, some will fight for what they believe, now apply this type of thinking to learning.

I’ll restate your example to make it clearer.

Some believe in freedom: This really means – some believe as a truth that freedom is worthwhile.

There is ample evidence that shows that freedom is a worthwhile condition. This truth has already been determined. I do not need to further search for a proof that freedom is worthwhile.

Knowing this truth I have no need to engage in further education that freedom is worthwhile, that would be a futile endeavor.

Your example is not applicable to your desire to search for a god that you state you already believe exists.

Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

If you believe this then why look any further?

Pretend there is a "chain of knowledge." God is the end of that chain. Most theists would put God at the beginning.

Your two quotes appear contradictory. If you believe as true that a god is the ultimate answer then there can’t be alternative answers. If you suspect that there might be alternative answers then you clearly can’t believe that a god is the ultimate answer. An ultimate answer infers that there are no alternatives.

Cris, maybe you should know what ultimate actually means before stating my statements are contradictory.

ultimate: Being last in a series, process, or progression.

When you die, according to atheism, your ultimate answer is death.

When I die, according to my theism, my answer is death, but the ultimate answer is God.

But really what answers are you talking about? Please be specific.

You may call me on my wishful thinking, but it does not logically handicap me compared to any atheist. I can be as logical as any atheist, I just have the "extra" belief in God.

Answers, science, observation, etc. can answer many things for us, but God is the end of all answers. Knowing the true origins of the universe, how existence came to be, wouldn't that be the ultimate answer?

I believe in a creator, the very beginning of creation, this creator is God. From the purely atheistic viewpoint, who is your ultimate creator Cris, the very beginning of creation? If you do answer, you must answer so with faith.

You cannot both believe that a god exists and at the same doubt that he exists which is implied by searching. If you believe he exists then why search?

I believe in God, but I have simply not found God yet, I will admit to what I am ignorant of.

Some believe in aliens, you go ask them, "why search?"

I’ll restate your example to make it clearer.

Some believe in freedom: This really means – some believe as a truth that freedom is worthwhile.

There is ample evidence that shows that freedom is a worthwhile condition. This truth has already been determined. I do not need to further search for a proof that freedom is worthwhile.

Knowing this truth I have no need to engage in further education that freedom is worthwhile, that would be a futile endeavor.

Your example is not applicable to your desire to search for a god that you state you already believe exists.

Cris

So are you saying that you don't need to believe in the beginning of creation and existence? Or you believe that existence is eternal and infinite?

Thanks

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Cris, maybe you should know what ultimate actually means before stating my statements are contradictory.

ultimate: Being last in a series, process, or progression.

Nonsense, that was not the appropriate context. Try this -

ULTIMATE
1. the best or most extreme of its kind.
2. incapable of further analysis.

Pretend there is a "chain of knowledge." God is the end of that chain. Most theists would put God at the beginning.

If you start with the conclusion then there is no chain. You can only conclude that a god is at the end of the chain by beginning with the assumption that such a god might not exist and then proceeding to process the chain. If you start by concluding that a god does exist then all you have done is jumped straight to the end of the chain.

When you die, according to atheism, your ultimate answer is death.

Death is not an answer but a failure to find an answer.

When I die, according to my theism, my answer is death, but the ultimate answer is God.

I can find no sense in that sentence.

You may call me on my wishful thinking, but it does not logically handicap me compared to any atheist. I can be as logical as any atheist, I just have the "extra" belief in God.

As I think we agreed, if the basis for your belief is not factual then you are illogical, and not logical as you claim. What you are really doing is claiming the existence of god as a hypothesis and then you are trying to prove your hypothesis, and that is perfectly logical. Belief does not even need to enter into your approach.

Answers, science, observation, etc. can answer many things for us, but God is the end of all answers. Knowing the true origins of the universe, how existence came to be, wouldn't that be the ultimate answer?

Yes but the ultimate answer might not involve any such things as gods. You have assumed the ultimate answer is a god without the search, that is simply crazy.

I believe in a creator, the very beginning of creation, this creator is God. From the purely atheistic viewpoint, who is your ultimate creator Cris, the very beginning of creation? If you do answer, you must answer so with faith.

There is no need to use faith for anything. I believe something when I know that something is true or close enough to truth based on inductive logical reasoning.

You seem to have concluded that the universe was created. No one can know that is true yet. If the universe is infinite then no god is required. At this point I don’t know if the universe had a beginning or is infinite.

I believe in God, but I have simply not found God yet, I will admit to what I am ignorant of.

But you are not admitting ignorance when you state you believe in God. You are claiming that a god exists as a truth. Sorry, but we seem to be going round in circles. You appear to me to be very confused.

Some believe in aliens, you go ask them, "why search?"

Those that believe are equally irrational as theists. Those that hypothesize are perfectly logical and have every reason to search.

So are you saying that you don't need to believe in the beginning of creation and existence? Or you believe that existence is eternal and infinite?

One does not need to state a belief either way if there is no factual evidence for either. To conclude either way would be irrational and illogical.

However, I can conclude that something must be infinite since if there was a time when nothing existed then there could never have been a cause for something more to exist. We know the universe exists but we don’t know if anything else exists that might have caused it to be created. In which case the most reasonable hypothesis at the moment is that the universe is infinite, i.e. has no beginning and no end.

Cris

PS. Why do you refer to your god by the Christian name God? I thought you weren’t a Christian.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Cris

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

Nonsense, that was not the appropriate context. Try this -

Are you positive? I stated: "God is the ultimate answer."

According to context, you should have concluded ultimate is used as an adjective and not a noun as your definition below.

ULTIMATE
1. the best or most extreme of its kind.
2. incapable of further analysis.

If you start with the conclusion then there is no chain. You can only conclude that a god is at the end of the chain by beginning with the assumption that such a god might not exist and then proceeding to process the chain. If you start by concluding that a god does exist then all you have done is jumped straight to the end of the chain.

I don't see the end of the chain, so I don't know if God exists or not. I can merely believe there exists such an end of the chain.

Death is not an answer but a failure to find an answer.

But in a sense, it is the end of any more answers.

I can find no sense in that sentence.

You can call me on my wishful thinking, but at least it is not pessimistic

Take my definition of ultimate, the adjective then it will make sense.

Well, an atheist end to answers would be death. Most theist's end to answers would be an afterlife.

As I think we agreed, if the basis for your belief is not factual then you are illogical, and not logical as you claim. What you are really doing is claiming the existence of god as a hypothesis and then you are trying to prove your hypothesis, and that is perfectly logical. Belief does not even need to enter into your approach.

I have my valid reasons to believe. I have to call it a belief, Cris, a hypothesis is an explaination of any facts, there are no facts that lead to God, other answers are capable of fulfilling that need.

I don't think it is possible to have a logical hypothesis for God, if one tries it will be illogical. Here is an example.

Theist: My hypothesis, look at how beautiful nature is, what caused this? Evidence of God, design.

Now is that a logical hypothesis? No, it is merely a belief. Beliefs are illogical hypotheses because there is simply no fact or evidence to support it at least to some extent.

Other theists claim of visions, etc. - but there is no verifiability, so such a truth only remains a truth to themselves. Thus you can easily call them on their illogicallity, how else can they verify? It is easy to reject, but it takes courage to believe.

Yes but the ultimate answer might not involve any such things as gods. You have assumed the ultimate answer is a god without the search, that is simply crazy.

You don't know it doesn't involve God, we don't know if God is relevant or irrelevant. I believe God is the end of all answers, and this would lead to my searching. What is the end?

There is no need to use faith for anything. I believe something when I know that something is true or close enough to truth based on inductive logical reasoning.

According to the definition of create: To cause to exist; bring into being

Thus, we can deductively conclude that we have been created. In a sense the earth is our creator, the universe is also, but who is the creator that remains the ultimate? (Notice, ultimate is used as a noun here )

Is there such an ultimate? I ask myself these questions, and I don't believe in infinite and if I don't believe in infinite, then I can conclude that there is an ultimate, I simply call this ultimate God. Since stars have their life cycles and the current theories on Big Bang Cosmology state spontaneous "creation" of matter through inflation fields and possible "instanton(s)"

You seem to have concluded that the universe was created. No one can know that is true yet. If the universe is infinite then no god is required. At this point I don’t know if the universe had a beginning or is infinite.

I believe the universe came into existence Thus it was created.

I just don't believe in infinite existing in reality, it is only a concept that can be divulged from the mind and imagination and then be applied to reality.

Yes, at this point we are all ignorant of the universe(s)' orgin(s). But what can you conclude? You lack a belief in God correct? You don't dis-believe, because then I can call you on your illogicality. Thus, since you lack a belief in God, you don't question about possibilities of God. I question, then believe.

But you are not admitting ignorance when you state you believe in God. You are claiming that a god exists as a truth. Sorry, but we seem to be going round in circles. You appear to me to be very confused.

I'm not confused Cris, it's because you don't understand me, I haven't elaborated myself enough.

I am ignorant, I don't know if God exists or not, I merely believe, you perfectly understand what it means to merely believe. Please don't create loopholes and say I claim God exists as a truth. Always use the word believe, I believe God exists as a truth.

Those that believe are equally irrational as theists. Those that hypothesize are perfectly logical and have every reason to search.

Ah I see what you meant. So hypothesize? Where are their facts to be able to call it a hypotheses? Belief or hypothesis?

One does not need to state a belief either way if there is no factual evidence for either. To conclude either way would be irrational and illogical.

So you just don't simply conclude about the origins of the universe. I rather question and believe something than not to question and lack any believe.

It's simply as this:

Question: What are the true absolute origin(s) of the universe(s)?

Cris: I don't believe in any true absolute origins, because if I do so, it will be illogical so I will not go down that path.

My belief is illogical but it does not inhibit me logically, please at least understand that part. In simplified terms, I question about the mysteries and form conclusions from such questions.

However, I can conclude that something must be infinite since if there was a time when nothing existed then there could never have been a cause for something more to exist. We know the universe exists but we don’t know if anything else exists that might have caused it to be created. In which case the most reasonable hypothesis at the moment is that the universe is infinite, i.e. has no beginning and no end.

Cris

PS. Why do you refer to your god by the Christian name God? I thought you weren’t a Christian.

Interesting and intelligent conclusion you made Cris. It leaves me thinking...there is no proof that the universe is infinite. We came into existence, the earth, solar sytems - all came into existence through some way, so what's to conclude that the universe did not come into existence? Stars, to galaxies, to Super Clusters, to Great Walls, all came into existence...so how can we possibly conclude beyond a doubt that the universe is infinite in its existence if everything under the universe came into existence and has actual life cycles? Who's to say the universe does not have a life cycle like its lower systems? So are you implying that the universe is ultimate? The ultimate answer? I admit, that was a very intelligent argument for the infinite universe.

Existence could very well be infinite, but causes? The earth caused our existence, the universe caused our existence and the earth's existence. There are, in a sense, our creators, but what/who lies the creator that is ultimate? You would mention the universe, but on what grounds? I would mention God, but on what grounds?

Why is the universe expanding? Can it really be infinite? In time? In existence? Those are big questions to try to answer.

Cris, I don't refer to the Christian God at all, sorry about that. But I type God, capitalized because of respect. Just like how I type your name and any other's.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

There is much more in your post that I must respond. For now though –

We came into existence, the earth, solar systems - all came into existence through some way, so what's to conclude that the universe did not come into existence? Stars, to galaxies, to Super Clusters, to Great Walls, all came into existence...so how can we possibly conclude beyond a doubt that the universe is infinite in its existence if everything under the universe came into existence and has actual life cycles? Who's to say the universe does not have a life cycle like its lower systems?

All the things you state that came into existence did not come into existence from nothing, they were formed from already existing matter and energy.

Your analogy with the universe itself having a life cycle is invalid since the term ‘universe’ implies everything. For the analogy to work you must show that there are other universes from which this one was formed, and that defies the definition.

You remain faced with the problem that if at some point the universe did not exist then there is nothing left that could have started it. And here I am including quantum events as being part of the universe (i.e. everything). The hypothesis is that the universe must be infinite otherwise it could never have begun. Or that something else, currently undefined created the universe, but then that ‘something’ must also have the property of infinity or it’s creation source did.

Every way you look at this there has to be something that has the property of infinity (including the idea of a god if you wish) otherwise nothing could ever have begun.

Infinity is not just a mere concept it is a reality that must exist otherwise we could not be here.

There can be only one universe otherwise we will have to redefine the term, so the concept of a lifecycle has no meaning. But this is within the natural (material) realm.

Since there is no evidence for an unnatural (immaterial) realm and we know that the universe does exist, and we can see that infinity must exist, then without further evidence to the contrary the hypothesis that the universe is infinite remains perfectly rational.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

I have my valid reasons to believe. I have to call it a belief, Cris, a hypothesis is an explaination of any facts, there are no facts that lead to God, other answers are capable of fulfilling that need.

What do you mean by valid reasons? A belief is either based on facts (rational belief), or isn’t based on facts (irrational belief). Both are valid forms of belief.

When someone says they believe something they are really saying “I have a conviction that this something is a truth”. That is what it means to hold a belief.

From Webster: Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

A hypothesis is quite different.

From Webster: Hypothesis:

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.
1 b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

A hypothesis is not a claim of truth or facts but an educated guess, or more precisely an assumption as a basis for a search or research.

You have stated –

1. I believe a god exists.
2. I believe a god might not exist.
3. I am searching for God.

Items 2 and 3 are in direct conflict with 1; these are opposing beliefs that reflect most of your very confusing and contradictory posts.

However, your position is perfectly consistent with the formation of a hypothesis as a basis for your search. And that position is perfectly logical and rational.

A theist states that they know a god exists and that there is no question that a god might not exist and that there is no need to search for a god since he has already been found. This position does not fit at all with the statements you have made.

Hence my continued observation that you are definitely not a theist. However, I will not label you as I think that is something you need to consider yourself more carefully, although the term ‘freethinker’ comes close.

Other issues.

I don't think it is possible to have a logical hypothesis for God, if one tries it will be illogical. Here is an example.

Theist: My hypothesis, look at how beautiful nature is, what caused this? Evidence of God, design.

Now is that a logical hypothesis? No, it is merely a belief. Beliefs are illogical hypotheses because there is simply no fact or evidence to support it at least to some extent.

All these statements reflect your misunderstanding of the terms belief and hypothesis. I hope you can see from at least the dictionary definitions above that your statements here are really just nonsense. And there is no personal criticism intended here.

Other theists claim of visions, etc. - but there is no verifiability, so such a truth only remains a truth to themselves. Thus you can easily call them on their illogicallity, how else can they verify?

It isn’t other theists who make this error but all theists; that is the nature of theism, and since you are excluding yourself from making these errors then again you show yourself as a non theist.

It is easy to reject, but it takes courage to believe.

No, believing something without a logical basis is simply foolish. However, forming a radical hypothesis does take courage. Turning that hypothesis into fact or theory, however, will require facts, and that I think will be a very difficult if not an impossible task regarding the question of gods.

…. we don't know if God is relevant or irrelevant.

Once again you demonstrate your perfect non-theist position, this is an expression of doubt, theists never express doubt.

..I believe the universe came into existence Thus it was created.

That is a non sequitur. Believing something doesn’t make it true. But I’m sure you know that.

You lack a belief in God correct? You don't dis-believe, because then I can call you on your illogicality.

No, but a common and understandable error. To disbelieve something is quite logical, but to disbelieve (not believe) something is not the same as believing that the proposition is false.

Thus, since you lack a belief in God, you don't question about possibilities of God. I question, then believe.

Again a non sequitur. I’ve spent most of my life questioning the possibilities for the supernatural. I have conducted many experiments and investigated many organizations in the hope that the supernatural might exist. If it exists then the implications will be phenomenal. For the moment though all the claims I have seen for its existence simply defy rational belief, i.e. lack factual substance. This doesn’t mean that a god doesn’t exist, but that there is simply no reason to believe that one does.

I'm not confused Cris, it's because you don't understand me, I haven't elaborated myself enough.

I understand you perfectly and I can see how you have misunderstood several very basic terms that make all nearly your posts very confusing and often contradictory.

I am ignorant, I don't know if God exists or not, I merely believe, you perfectly understand what it means to merely believe. Please don't create loopholes and say I claim God exists as a truth. Always use the word believe, I believe God exists as a truth.

Again you state your non-theist position by claiming you do not know if God exists or not.

What does merely believe mean? Adding the adjective ‘merely’ doesn’t help at all. I won’t labor the point again since I hope you can see from the definitions at the start of this post that you have misunderstood what ‘to believe’ means.

Ah I see what you meant. So hypothesize? Where are their facts to be able to call it a hypotheses? Belief or hypothesis?

Again, review the definitions of belief and hypothesis.

So you just don't simply conclude about the origins of the universe. I rather question and believe something than not to question and lack any believe.

I don’t form conclusions but I have many imaginative hypothesis as to the possibilities of the origins.

My favorite at the moment is still the infinite number of big bang bubbles idea. See my very first post here at sciforums –

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=269&highlight=Multiple

Note that even at 1/1/2000 I’m not offering this as a truth or a belief but an avenue of investigation. This is a hypothesis, it doesn’t require facts or beliefs.

My belief is illogical but it does not inhibit me logically,…

But yes it does, because you consider that to reach conclusions in the absence of facts is acceptable. If you were logical then you would consistently maintain that a logical conclusion must rest on facts. Why would you say at some times you need facts and at other times you don’t. That erratic behavior is in itself illogical.

In simplified terms, I question about the mysteries and form conclusions from such questions.

You would do better if you formed conclusions from the answers rather than the questions. And if the answers were not conclusive then you should not feel required to reach a conclusion no matter what. A null answer is perfectly acceptable. It would be better still if you used the questions to form rational hypotheses.

Cris

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Cris

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

What do you mean by valid reasons? A belief is either based on facts (rational belief), or isn’t based on facts (irrational belief). Both are valid forms of belief.

When someone says they believe something they are really saying “I have a conviction that this something is a truth”. That is what it means to hold a belief.

Conviction is a strong or fixed belief, that is the definition that I use.

From Webster: Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

A hypothesis is quite different.

From Webster: Hypothesis:

1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.
1 b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.

A hypothesis is not a claim of truth or facts but an educated guess, or more precisely an assumption as a basis for a search or research.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

hypothesis (hì-pòth´î-sîs) noun
1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation; a theory.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

I derived from definition 1. But in your definition then it is an educated guess.

You have stated –

1. I believe a god exists.
2. I believe a god might not exist.
3. I am searching for God.

Items 2 and 3 are in direct conflict with 1; these are opposing beliefs that reflect most of your very confusing and contradictory posts.

1. I believe in God. To believe is to have faith, and faith does not rest on material evidence.
2. Yes, I see the possibility of God not existing, but I accept the possibility that God does exist. Acceptance is the key here.
3. I believe God exists, but I am searching for proof of God. A good analogy is this. I am climbing up a hill, I believe that there is a top to the hill, and by climbing it I am searching for this top.

However, your position is perfectly consistent with the formation of a hypothesis as a basis for your search. And that position is perfectly logical and rational.

A theist states that they know a god exists and that there is no question that a god might not exist and that there is no need to search for a god since he has already been found. This position does not fit at all with the statements you have made.

Yes that position does not, that I why I consider myself more of an agnostic-theist.

• Agnostic atheist - one who believes that the existence of god can never be concretely proven, but does not believe a god exists.
• Agnostic theist - one who believes that the existence of a god can never be concretely proven, but does believe that a god exists.

Meanwhile...

(1) A "gnostic theist" believes in God and claims to have certain knowledge of God's existence.

(2) An "agnostic theist" believes in God but doesn't claim certainty.

(3) A "gnostic atheist" doesn't believe in God and claims to have certain knowledge of God's non-existence.

(4) An "agnostic atheist" doesn't believe in God but doesn't claim certainty.

I am an agnostic theist who is non-denominational. I rather be noticed as a weak-theist but there is no current definition of such.

Hence my continued observation that you are definitely not a theist. However, I will not label you as I think that is something you need to consider yourself more carefully, although the term ‘freethinker’ comes close.

You are identifying me, and to you that is correct.

Other issues.

All these statements reflect your misunderstanding of the terms belief and hypothesis. I hope you can see from at least the dictionary definitions above that your statements here are really just nonsense. And there is no personal criticism intended here.

I derived the "sense" from the dictionary I use the most - The American Heritage

It isn’t other theists who make this error but all theists; that is the nature of theism, and since you are excluding yourself from making these errors then again you show yourself as a non theist.

I don't think all theists claim of visions and such. My mother claims to have seen her father's ghost, and my father claims nothing.

No, believing something without a logical basis is simply foolish. However, forming a radical hypothesis does take courage. Turning that hypothesis into fact or theory, however, will require facts, and that I think will be a very difficult if not an impossible task regarding the question of gods.

My "logic" is this:

I believe in a finite universe.
For something to be finite it must have a beginning and come to existence at some point.
The cause of such coming into existence is a creator.
I call this creator God.

The premise (1st statement) has no proof, thus the whole thing can be called a belief.

Once again you demonstrate your perfect non-theist position, this is an expression of doubt, theists never express doubt.

Thinking this way came from my days as an atheist for quite some time.

That is a non sequitur. Believing something doesn’t make it true. But I’m sure you know that.

Of course.

No, but a common and understandable error. To disbelieve something is quite logical, but to disbelieve (not believe) something is not the same as believing that the proposition is false.

I see.

Again a non sequitur. I’ve spent most of my life questioning the possibilities for the supernatural. I have conducted many experiments and investigated many organizations in the hope that the supernatural might exist. If it exists then the implications will be phenomenal. For the moment though all the claims I have seen for its existence simply defy rational belief, i.e. lack factual substance. This doesn’t mean that a god doesn’t exist, but that there is simply no reason to believe that one does.

The thing is Cris, there is no answer for the true origins of the universe.

I ask myself a simple question and take the best answer.

Just like the theory of evolution, it is the best answer we have as of now and I will take the best answer instead of leaving it blank.

I understand you perfectly and I can see how you have misunderstood several very basic terms that make all nearly your posts very confusing and often contradictory.

I think it lies in your use of the webster dictionary and my use of the american heritage, it offers different perspectives.

Again you state your non-theist position by claiming you do not know if God exists or not.

Yes, I do not know because I have no directly perceived through experience.

What does merely believe mean? Adding the adjective ‘merely’ doesn’t help at all. I won’t labor the point again since I hope you can see from the definitions at the start of this post that you have misunderstood what ‘to believe’ means.

Just that, merely believe. No certainties, sureness, claims to absolute truth, etc.

I merely believe, I do not make it a big thing and let it run my life. We are in charge of our own destinies. I keep my belief to myself in real life, I am not like other theists and constantly mention "God this" and "God that"

Again, review the definitions of belief and hypothesis.

I don’t form conclusions but I have many imaginative hypothesis as to the possibilities of the origins.

My favorite at the moment is still the infinite number of big bang bubbles idea. See my very first post here at sciforums –

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=269&highlight=Multiple

Note that even at 1/1/2000 I’m not offering this as a truth or a belief but an avenue of investigation. This is a hypothesis, it doesn’t require facts or beliefs.

I see what you mean, and that idea is interesting. But it still lacks a "truth." The Big Bang started how? From nothing? Something can create itself?

But yes it does, because you consider that to reach conclusions in the absence of facts is acceptable. If you were logical then you would consistently maintain that a logical conclusion must rest on facts. Why would you say at some times you need facts and at other times you don’t. That erratic behavior is in itself illogical.

It only inhibits me logically concerning my belief, that is all, everything else I am purely logical and scientific.

You would do better if you formed conclusions from the answers rather than the questions. And if the answers were not conclusive then you should not feel required to reach a conclusion no matter what. A null answer is perfectly acceptable. It would be better still if you used the questions to form rational hypotheses.

Cris

1. I rather have at least a conclusion, than no conclusion. There are many claims of visions, God, miracles, etc. - it just takes *one* of those claims to be true.
   
2. So I conclude God is possible and also conclude (as a result of an open mind) that God could also not be possible.
   
3. The thing is, I accept one over the other. And if I don't accept, then I will have no conclusion. And it goes back to point 1.

 

[Cris]

Chosen,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I wasn’t sure if you’d get back to this. I appreciate the impartial tone as well.

I see we still disagree on a few things, and different dictionaries certainly do not help much. I’ll try not to bug you too much in the future on our different perceptions of definitions.

I do like your approach on different ‘labels’. You appear to be unique, but I suspect you aren’t.

If this doesn’t sound too condescending, then I’d like to state that I think you have grown here since you started. You have certainly participated strongly in several discussions recently, and is has been fun to see you in action. But picking out all those back references does take time. You have my respect for that, if my respect is worth anything to you.

Take care
Cris