Close-mindedness is a problem in more people than just those who inject God as an answer to anything.
Close-mindedness is a problem in more people than just those who inject God as an answer to anything.
S
science man
Guest
What do you mean, what part? At least the way AlexG described it, the whole theory sounds sounds like its based off of chance. Keep in mind that I'm referring to what AlexG said on post 237.
You were the one who claimed god exists outside of the universe that it created and because there is no time outside the universe it is a static object next to god. That would make god a static object as well. If you need to adjust the claim to escape this then by all means do; however, if you claim limited comprehension to a dimension where it does not apply then I'll turn right around and point out your god falls in that exact same category. So either way, I am going to invalidate it by your rules.
To link similar cross sections of definitions between words. You didn't assert a similarity. You asserted an identity. We don't have distinct words in the English language that are identities, so the original question still applies.
Imagination and lies are very real. What they represent isn't (i.e. they don't match actual reality). Would you say that non-imagination and non-lies are true?
Not quite. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable. In this context, A-Belief would be the non-acceptance and non-rejection of such claims.
I don't actually disagree with that. How do any one of us KNOW that any one of the next of us is actually real? How do I know I'm real? Is it by virtue of my consciousness? What if I am a brain in a jar?
We know it because our presence is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. Anything we have ever observed that is not real fails that test.
Even in a static universe where all the interactions were made at once, that interaction would be distinguishable from non-interaction because observable difference would be present. Of course when that difference doesn't exist, you will have to protect the god belief and take all interaction away.
The more you have to hide your god to protect it, the more it turns from a creative attractive idea into a stupid one with a high level of hiding maintenance. If you can't hold people's interest with an idea, then it will have a very low infection rate. In short it won't be effective.
You have, of course, a full and adequate understanding of the Bible ...
What is your belief in God based or dependant on?
Wow, twisted double think you have going on there. You seem to think that theology can be a completely separate subject? I guess though you also accept the supernatural realm. Double think is required there too.
It seems you are saying that things exist that science cannot explain, or detect, or model, or find evidence for. But then these things can cause an effect within our Universe, such as the will of God. Either that realm is separate, or there is an interface that projects into our reality. You can't have it both ways. If this realm can affect us, we can detect, and gather data, and model it, using science. This is where the excuses begin. It's undetectable, apart from when you can see the will of God at work, etc.
But there is encouraging evidence from the Miller-Urey experiment. It's not random either, it's all due to radioactive stability of elements, relative abundances, and chemical affinities.
See, you seem to be dismissing the Miller-Urey experiment, when it's not been run for a protracted period, vs the 4billion year age of the Earth. That is dishonest. Some things just take time.
If God created the Universe, where did God come from? Come on Jan, this question is asked and asked and asked, and never answered satisfactorily. The answer given is often some cop-out like 'God has existed for ever, and had no beginning' so we point out that if God had always existed, that means for Infinite time, and as Infinite time has not passed yet, God cannot have created the Universe yet, so the excuse then comes 'God exists outside of time', ... oh really, yet he's happy with such concepts as 'judgement day' and it supposedly took him a set period of time to create the Earth, according to Genesis?
Please, none of the allegations wrt God are consistent. Believing in these faery stories isn't open minded, it's just believing in faery stories.
Yes, what part?
The birth of the Universe part, abiogenesis, or the evolution of intelligent life. Which part of that do you think was 'random'?
WRT post #237, 'random' was qualified with 'quantum fluctuation' ALL of which are considered random due to their (as yet) unpredictable nature.
Even if it was random, don't you grasp the idea that a Universe that could not sustain itself would just cease to exist eventually, leaving a void, where the process could start again. Do you not grasp that this Universe might not be self-sustaining, but that it just takes time to collapse and cease to exist? That it might be many billions of years? That this process might have repeated billions of times already? Infinitely? That during these repeat cycles, life might just happen?
I'm not sure that it is based, or dependant on anything.
I'm inclined to think it is a natural understanding.
jan.
phlogistician,
You mean the answer doesn't fit with your argument.
God does not come into being, and never goes out of being.
This is what most theists believe, including myself. The scriptures
support this definition.
You believe that if God exists then He must be
a material being, therefore subject to the laws of nature, meaning he is
not God. At least the God you are arguing about with me.
So when you ask this question, ask the person who believes God
is a material being.
Forever is a concept of time lasting forever.
Time is a part of material nature.
God is. No past, no present, no future.
Genesis doesn't explain the full process of the creation of the universe.
For that you have to read the Shrimad Bhagavatam.
They're not faery stories, that's just you and your ilk trying to discredit
the scriptures. You don't even know why you discredit them. Your either
demonic or just following the crowd for your own little benefit.
And you think POOF!!! the universe just popped into existence, and somehow
or other VOILA!!! here we are.
Open-minded?
Yeah right!
jan.
You mean the answer doesn't fit with your argument.
God does not come into being, and never goes out of being.
This is what most theists believe, including myself. The scriptures
support this definition.
You believe that if God exists then He must be
a material being, therefore subject to the laws of nature, meaning he is
not God. At least the God you are arguing about with me.
So when you ask this question, ask the person who believes God
is a material being.
Forever is a concept of time lasting forever.
Time is a part of material nature.
God is. No past, no present, no future.
Genesis doesn't explain the full process of the creation of the universe.
For that you have to read the Shrimad Bhagavatam.
They're not faery stories, that's just you and your ilk trying to discredit
the scriptures. You don't even know why you discredit them. Your either
demonic or just following the crowd for your own little benefit.
And you think POOF!!! the universe just popped into existence, and somehow
or other VOILA!!! here we are.
Open-minded?
Yeah right!
jan.
How does that work? Explain it.
Scriptures written by mortals. Big deal.
You just contradicted yourself, but if God exists, God has to comprise of something, even if it yet to be understood what. If this God can manipulate, and create matter, God and matter cannot be totally dissimilar, can they?
Eh? Mix and match philosophies?
Jesus as you know him is an invention of the Romans. I don't need to discredit a fictional character really. Your God has been through the same process.
Because they are inconsistent and illogical?
As demons don't exist, I think it's probably the latter, no?
So, to recap, where did your God come from? You gave me the exact unsatisfactory illogical answer I predicted you would. You have no answer, just an unswerving fondness for faery stories.
phlogistician,
What do you mean by "How does that work?"
Trancendental mortals, who, through the correct process realise
the truth. It is a big deal.
Pure spirit, the symptom of which is pure consciousness.
God doesn't create matter.
Matter can neither be created or destroyed, a scientific theory that resonates with scriptures.
Material energy is but one of Gods' energies, it is this energy that
fashions matter.
A good is analogy is one which has been used on here before. The sun exhibits heat and light everywhere, yet remains in its orbit.
From your perspective, yes, but not from mine.
So you should have no trouble explaining how you know this.
No they're not.
It is deemed so by powerful mortals who have an interest in creating
that illusion.
How do you know demons don't exist?
God, is.
The question is, where does everything else come from.
I've given no illogical answers.
They make perfect sense once God is taken into consideration. If you choose
not to do so, then that's something you have to come to terms with.
jan.
What do you mean by "How does that work?"
Trancendental mortals, who, through the correct process realise
the truth. It is a big deal.
Pure spirit, the symptom of which is pure consciousness.
God doesn't create matter.
Matter can neither be created or destroyed, a scientific theory that resonates with scriptures.
Material energy is but one of Gods' energies, it is this energy that
fashions matter.
A good is analogy is one which has been used on here before. The sun exhibits heat and light everywhere, yet remains in its orbit.
From your perspective, yes, but not from mine.
So you should have no trouble explaining how you know this.
No they're not.
It is deemed so by powerful mortals who have an interest in creating
that illusion.
How do you know demons don't exist?
God, is.
The question is, where does everything else come from.
I've given no illogical answers.
They make perfect sense once God is taken into consideration. If you choose
not to do so, then that's something you have to come to terms with.
jan.
How can God just always have been?
No, mortals.
What is spirit made of?
No, that would be your flawed view of it. See, this equation:
$$
E=mc^2
$$
demonstrated the relationship between matter and energy, and how much energy you get when you destroy matter. Scripture is wrong is it says what you say it does.
That wasn't a good analogy.
You haven't given a single logical answer.
No it doesn't. You had to make up so many excuses it certainly doesn't make sense.
Why would that make God a static object? In what sense? What would that even mean outside our familiar dimensions?
I don't have any interest in engaging in a semantic dispute. Do you not understand what I am saying, or are you just trying to pick apart words for the hell of it?
True enough (that imagination and lies are real, but what they represent are not). Sure, why not - non-lies and non-imagination are true. But again, I'm really not interested in getting into a semantic debate here.
Semantic Issue
None of that actually proves anything. We are all limited in our understanding of reality to our ability to perceive. If all of our perceptions are illusions, how do we know any of it is true "reality"?
That's just it - difference from what? If you are suggesting that God would create a universe that follows certain rules, and then in certain spots arbitrarily break those rules - and that is what you are looking for as proof - then you are looking for an imperfect God. A perfect God would have created the universe to follow its rules perfectly. God's place in the universe would be indistinguishable from the "natural" processes implemented by God.
First of all, I'm not "hiding God" - and I'm most certainly not trying to spread anything to others. My interest in theology and science is to understand what the scriptures might really mean in light of an ever-changing understanding of reality. To understand both spirituality and the physical world is my goal. I use two separate tools to do so. I really don't care if you find my understanding of God to be appealing or creative. If you find something contradictory, then my understanding is flawed and that would be something that I would find of interest.
Of course - how could I believe in God and NOT believe in the supernatural realm. And incidentally, if you are going to continue with accusations with no supporting logic I am just going to start ignoring your posts. You say that "double think" is required to believe in a supernatural realm, or that the notion of science and theology being different subjects is "double think"? And yet you don't address the very definitions of the words that would indicate such? Your statements are losing credibility fast. You're going to have to back them up if you want me to stay engaged. I don't have time to address the argumentative ramblings of someone interested in little more than insults.
Don't apply other people's words to mine in an effort to discredit mine. I have never defined the will of God as anything other than the laws of nature, of physics. See my previous post. You atheists are so eager to discredit theism that you are making up your own theologies just so you can argue against them. That is a significant waste of my time. If you want to talk about my theology, do so - don't bring in others.
Then there is no need to hold your belief in the supernatural.
I think you need to get your ideas straight and come back and present a logical and consistent viewpoint, because at the moment, you seem confused as to your own opinion.
I am not the one that is confused. I never said there was a need for belief in the supernatural; that is something you assumed, presumably because it is a line you are used to hearing. Once more, you make an accusation of missing logic and inconsistency, while failing to point out how.
So you believe in the supernatural because you just like the idea?