Since the first and last statements were not even related, no - I don't. I suspect I did not properly convey my position. Would you care to point out what is contradictory?
quadraphonics,
Works for me.
Right, so why not just stick with:
Might as well assume that I'm real, because there's little to do or say otherwise."
I understand your point, I'm not opposed to the question.
I also agree and was my point in responding that for practical purposes in a discussion for example, it can get muddled and is best to leave that for another discussion, a subject of it's own.
Works for me.
Right, so why not just stick with:
Might as well assume that I'm real, because there's little to do or say otherwise."
I understand your point, I'm not opposed to the question.
I also agree and was my point in responding that for practical purposes in a discussion for example, it can get muddled and is best to leave that for another discussion, a subject of it's own.
I'm content with such. The reason I invoked it to begin with was to dispute the elevation of such a position to an absolutely knowable, concrete fact, rather than an assumption.
The first sentence assigns an extreme position to "all atheists." The last laments that it is ridiculous to approach such issues by assigning extreme positions to opponents at the outset.
Also, statements that are unrelated should not occupy the same paragraph. Or post or thread, for that matter.
I agree. Which is why I kept saying that god is not needed in the scenario or theory he laid out.
I suspect though that at some point SolusCado will have to determine whether debating atheists or Christian fundamentalists is more valuable to him.
His stated position or theory is such that he will have more explaining to do with the fundies. Which I believe he has already accepted as likely and I wish him luck.
Sure, got it.
Yeah; I kinda make opponents out of everyone, don't I? The conversations are different though, so still engaging. Frankly, I believe "the fundies" as you put are responsible for the anti-theist position. They are judgemental, and tend to try to elevate their position with bad science, and in doing so establish bad theology. My goal is present a theology that doesn't rest on bad science, but is still consistent with scriptures (since Christians at least won't listen to anything but scripture). Obviously, it requires some relatively novel interpretations of scripture, but I think it is novel only because we have spent SO LONG following bad theology (and I think you can thank the Catholic Church for that one).You said you believed in God, and yourself declared a belief in the supernatural.
You then re-defined God to be something that theists on the whole wouldn't agree with. See, in debate, if you use a generally accepted term, but change it's meaning, things gets complicated, as they have here.
You say your God is the forces of nature. Why not just call it the forces of nature? I don't quite see what it is you have faith in, or why you convolve God and the supernatural into it. Seems like you have a need to be spiritual, but aren't quite sure what it is you want.
S
science man
Guest
Yes and when the theory says that, isn't it referring to the bith of thee universe?
funny that you bring that up. My teacher just talked about that it class today and yes I do grasp it but that doesn't mean I buy it.
No, I say that God, the supernatural being, manifests himself in our reality through the forces of nature. I have faith that this supernatural being exists. I am completely sure, and have no doubts or confusion.
What makes you sure?
I am completely sure of what it is that I believe; I recognize that I don't know whether it is true or not.
Care to stop being evasive, and actually tell us why you feel this way?
I'm not being evasive at all; this is the first time anyone has asked that, and I've actually already provided an answer a couple times. Without repeating all the detail in the other posts, it basically boils down to the following (in no particular order, and if you want more detail, you'll just need to reread my posts in this thread):
God either exists or He/She/It doesn't. If God doesn't exist, we are faced with ascribing the same attributes regarding eternity to the universe itself. Such inscrutability would make sense under the context of a deity, it makes less sense for something that just "is".
- In my own life, I see truths from Christian teaching repeating over and over again in the world, so whether it is a supernatural truth or a supernatural attribution to physical truths, it is true nonetheless. That the religious leaders of the Old and New Testament would recognize and teach so much truth, but be so far off base regarding the supernatural elements seems unlikely.
- Given a choice to believe in something that by its very nature demands faith and believing something that by its very nature demands evidence, and given a lack of evidence for either, it is more intellectually honest to believe in the one that acknowledges that it is predicated on faith.
There are actually a couple more, but those are the basics.
1, Where does 'eternity' come into this. The Universe is ~14Bn years old.
2, The Christian idol, Jesus, did not exist as he is described in the New Testament. He is a fictional character based on Mithras, and whoever the real Jesus was. A fictional character invented by the Roman Empire to unite Mithranists and Christians under the same control mechanism, 'The Roman Catholic Church' whose headquarters is Vatican Hill, same location as where Mithranism was managed from! All this means, is that the stories the Romans used to appeal to people, are the same human themes that have always appealed, and they appeal to you. That's why they were chosen. Not because there is a shred of truth in them, but they are good stories.
3, Evidence. There is evidence for the Big Bang. Science gathers evidence. There is not a God shaped gap in the evidence. So I don't buy your reason for having faith.
Eternity comes in before the 14 billion years.
That is a modern theory that hardly has enough archeological evidence to support the authority with which you make this claim.
The gap is again in the pre-14b years noted earlier.
I don't really care; I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I'm certainly not trying to justify my faith to you.