Christianity, My foot in my mouth, and more

[firefighter]

"Science is only limited by what can be shown to be true. That seems smart to me. You on the other hand do not limit yourself to reality and truth but prefer to claim that your fantasies and delusions are real. Now that is really dumb."

Hmmm...? Regardless of what one might "name" various aspects their reality or truth, isn't the realization of the existence of "physical" indicative of the existence of "non-physical" and vice-versa?

 

[Cris]

secret,

"Atheism, The Case Against God, by George H Smith" is probably the most well known book as a reader for atheism. It wasn't a casual reference.

The book has a deeper discussion of the issues than I can reasonable cover here.

It is simpler if I quote some other references that you can follow up yourself.

The cosmological argument.

Try this by Thomas Ash. I think this covers all the points in your assignment.

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-againstcosmological.shtml

A short extract -

But probably the most important objection that can be made to the cosmological argument is that even if (and I hope I have shown that this really is a big if) it shows the existence of something, it does not in any way show the existence of God. It is surprising the number of people who use it as their proof for God (especially if it is their only proof) without acknowledging that the first cause could be anything. In no way whatsoever must it be the God of the Bible and traditional religion.

Here is another excellent article that debates the Kalem argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/greg_scorzo/kalam.html

The Moral Argument.

Here is a good article - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/moral.html

or try this one

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_17_3.html

A short extract -

Since self-interest is not an adequate basis for morality, there is reason to believe that heaven and hell cannot perform the regulative function often attributed to them. Heaven and hell are often construed as the carrot and stick that God uses to make us toe the line. Heaven is the reward that good people get for being good, and hell is the punishment that bad people get for being bad. But consider this. Good people do good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not deserve our praise. Thus, if your only reason for performing good actions is your desire to go to heaven or your fear of going to hell - if all your other-regarding actions are motivated purely by self-interest - then you should go to hell because you are not a good person. An obsessive concern with either heaven or hell should actually lessen one's chances for salvation rather than increase them.

I would have said the same thing but this extract says it more neatly.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jaxom,

I would be extremely surprised if we were the only intelligence in this vast cosmos, and in all likelihood many have a jump on us in superiority. They will most likely find us first. But we are discussing a creator, not just other intelligence.

I suppose a creater IS another inteligence...

You can't be blind to the incredible achievements we've made since the beginnings of civilization, can you? Do I really need to list off the positive things mankind has done? Is society a perfectly good thing, no...but the bad things don't cancel them out.

We are almost destriying ourselves. That's sounds like cancelling out...

Faith is belief without empirical evidence. The fact that you believe it enough to convince yourself it's true doesn't make it true. But if it works for you, fine. Plain old humanism works fine for me.

No. Faith is the knowledge of somthing beyond your "normal" senses. It is not simply a belief.

If God was a benevolent god whose existence could be shown to skeptical minds such as mine, why would I be frightened? I'd actually find it both fascinating and puzzling, puzzling in that he could have done a better job of piecing a religious foundation.

Religions are from humans. They talked with the most sensible humans (very few) and the less sensible screwed up everything. He didn't intend to create Religion. In fact, He is totally against such thing!!!


Cris,

I don't know what you have in your mind when you say this. I'm clearly dependent on the laws of the universe for my survival. And I'm interested in survival just like you.

You still make human greater then we are...
And I'm not interested in survival, I'm interesting in freedom from this system.

It is you that is making the implications not me. We have no idea what other intelligences exist in the universe. We do not have enough information to say whether there is anything greater than us, including any potential gods.

So you cannot say "there is no God"...

The real issue is the enormous theist arrogance for stating that humans are so important and magnificent that they have the special personal attention of a super being who created the universe.

"Theists" states that an intelligent being must exist to create another one. It sounds silly to say that in the whole universe there is only us. How can the universe create something against its own nature? It is like saying that an apple tree can give orange. For intelligent little beings to exist, one must concider one big intelligent being out there. If there was no God, then we would be extremely unatural and alien to this universe.

Like I said we don't know what is out there yet, and neither do you. And neither can you say that your life was given to you. That is just theist arrogance again.

Maybe you didn't listen to Him, but I do. That's the Truth, I cannot lie. I cannot say He never spoke to me if that is what is true.

I've done this so many times for you in my past 3000+ posts that I think it is time you read some atheist literature so at least you might come up to speed with the basics of something you oppose so much but still haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I've read the bible so why don't you have the courtesy to read and properly understand the atheist viewpoint? Or are you afraid that you might learn something that will destroy your dreams and fantasies?

Done what? I have a limited time...

Belief based on evidence is rational belief. What's your point?

There is no evidence for infinite big bangs, whcih makes your belief irrational.

Are you saying that no big bang has occurred despite all the scientific evidence that indicates that it has?

No. I'm saying that is very unlikely that the idea of infinite big bangs in an infinite non-detectable multiverse is more plausible then that of a God.

And as for infinity then as I have shown many times already this must exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun and we couldn't be here.

What came before time came into being?

There is as yet zero evidence for the supernatural so you have zero plausibility for saying it is a possible cause of anything.

There is zero evidence for infinite big bangs in an infinite non-detectable multiverse, so you have negative plausibility for saying it is a possible cause of anything, compared to the idea of God.

Yes of course why limit your arrogance to just theology, you are of course superior to all the leading scientists in the field of cosmology right?

I'm taling about science itself...:bugeye:

Ok you are catching onto the possibilities of what might be reality here. Of course we also know that galaxies group together into clusters and then there are super clusters of them as well. But think of our big bang as just a bubble, like a single bubble in a bottle of soda pop. And then perhaps we can speculate about groups of bubbles and super clusters of bubbles etc.

Speculate. Non-detectable. Sounds like Religion to me...
Science and religion are coming together again....
Don't you see? You are turning to beliefs again...!

Could be and we have no reason to think that it doesn't. You seem to want to impose a limit to what we can discover just to satisfy your fantasy of a god.

No. I just think that it is quite impossible to get to a "theory of everything" since there is no limit. I'm not imposing the limit, I'm just bringing the awareness that your search for Truth is futile.

It is speculation just like your ideas for a god. The big difference between us is that I know I'm speculating, whereas you think your speculation of a god is something that really exists.

I KNOW He exists. He is inside me and I am inside Him.

Science is only limited by what can be shown to be true. That seems smart to me. You on the other hand do not limit yourself to reality and truth but prefer to claim that your fantasies and delusions are real. Now that is really dumb.

I don't calim them as true, I know them as true.

Yup if truthseeker gets a grasp on reality then that will be a revolution for sciforums, and the universe, no matter how large it really is.

Don't make me so important cause I'm not... and I feel embarassed...

 

[Cris]

truthseeker,

You still make human greater then we are...

?????

And I'm not interested in survival, I'm interesting in freedom from this system.

But if you are dead then freedom has no meaning. Every major religion and most others promise life after death, i.e. survival. That is why you are religious. Religion has no value otherwise. That you want the afterlife to be a better place than this is just the carrot being waved in your face to make you believe the fantasy.

So you cannot say "there is no God"...

Depends on your definition of a god. The Christian God certainly does not exist, it is an idiotic idea.

"Theists" states that an intelligent being must exist to create another one.

And other theists state that humans evolved, i.e. Catholics.

It sounds silly to say that in the whole universe there is only us.

Then don't say it, I haven't.

How can the universe create something against its own nature?

I doubt it can. What's your point?

For intelligent little beings to exist, one must concider one big intelligent being out there.

One could consider that or alternatively one could look at the facts and evidence of evolution and the apparent inevitability of abiogenesis.

If there was no God, then we would be extremely unatural and alien to this universe.

Non sequitur.

Maybe you didn't listen to Him, but I do. That's the Truth, I cannot lie. I cannot say He never spoke to me if that is what is true.

But you cannot tell the difference between a delusion and god talking. We know delusions occur but we have zero evidence for gods. By far the most likely conclusion is that you are suffering from psychotic delusions. Unless you have independent evidence to show your claims are real.

I have a limited time...

So have I.

There is no evidence for infinite big bangs, whcih makes your belief irrational.

It is a hypothesis. It is part of the scientific method. It has nothing to do with belief, rational or irrational.

I'm saying that is very unlikely that the idea of infinite big bangs in an infinite non-detectable multiverse is more plausible then that of a God.

Why? Both are equally undetectable. However, both Guth and Linde in their efforts on inflationary theory, which is currently being seen as a requirement to explain the big bang, do show how multiple big bangs could result and are probably inevitable from such a scenario. To this end Guth and Linde see big bang theory as being part of inflationary theory.

What is the scientific theory for a god?

What came before time came into being?

Show that time has not always existed.

There is zero evidence for infinite big bangs in an infinite non-detectable multiverse, so you have negative plausibility for saying it is a possible cause of anything, compared to the idea of God.

What is negative plausibility? And I haven't said anything about multiverse theory, since I don't subscribe to that.

Speculate. Non-detectable. Sounds like Religion to me...

LOL, except that theists do not believe they are speculating, they claim knowledge.

Science and religion are coming together again....

But they can never meet. Science is based on reason and religion is based on irrationality.

Don't you see? You are turning to beliefs again...!

An hypothesis is not a belief. And I believe many things when evidence is presented. You seem to have some hang up about 'beliefs" as if believing something is irrational. A belief can be either based on reason or not. One is rational and the other isn't, but both are beliefs. But big bang theory is a formal scientific theory. Rational belief based on this inductive theory is perfectly valid.

I just think that it is quite impossible to get to a "theory of everything" since there is no limit. I'm not imposing the limit, I'm just bringing the awareness that your search for Truth is futile.

It isn't the search that is futile but an expectation that one might eventually know everything that might be futile.

But then perhaps we will continue to evolve and all our combined intelligences merge together and we in turn merge with other intelligences in the universe, and then surpass mere matter and then beyond energy and beyond time to realize that we have discovered everything. At which point we can say, "let there be light", and create the universe, and see that it is good.

I KNOW He exists. He is inside me and I am inside Him.

Without independent evidence you are more likely to be a psychotic delusional. At the very least you are irrational.

I don't calim them as true, I know them as true.

To have knowledge you must have facts. You don't have any. Your claim is irrational.

Don't make me so important cause I'm not... and I feel embarassed...

LOL. But don't worry I have no illusions about your importance.

 

[Darwin Disciple]

Besides the argument between christians and atheists, do christians have strong arguments against other monotheistic or polytheistic religions?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

But if you are dead then freedom has no meaning. Every major religion and most others promise life after death, i.e. survival. That is why you are religious. Religion has no value otherwise. That you want the afterlife to be a better place than this is just the carrot being waved in your face to make you believe the fantasy.

First of all I'm NOT religious. Second, that's NOT the reason why I follow Jesus. The reason why I do it is that I want to be a blessing to others more then being blessed myself.I want to bring joy to this world and Love is the only way I can do so.

Depends on your definition of a god. The Christian God certainly does not exist, it is an idiotic idea.

Have you ever heard of "multiverse" and "multiple big bangs"? How is that more possible or believable then God?

And other theists state that humans evolved, i.e. Catholics.

We do evolve. Even the Bible says that. The Bible tells us to grow and change our souls.

Then don't say it, I haven't.

You say there is no God, so you have said it already.

I doubt it can. What's your point?

I answered it in the next sentence.

One could consider that or alternatively one could look at the facts and evidence of evolution and the apparent inevitability of abiogenesis.

Still. The universe cannot create intelligent life unless the universe has intelligent life. Something must first to be possible in order to occur.

Non sequitur.

It was a very easy conclusion to grasp.

But you cannot tell the difference between a delusion and god talking. We know delusions occur but we have zero evidence for gods. By far the most likely conclusion is that you are suffering from psychotic delusions. Unless you have independent evidence to show your claims are real.

I don't have a psychiatric record. That is already an independent evidence. :bugeye:

It is a hypothesis. It is part of the scientific method. It has nothing to do with belief, rational or irrational.

If you says it is true without knowing it, it is a belief.

Why? Both are equally undetectable. However, both Guth and Linde in their efforts on inflationary theory, which is currently being seen as a requirement to explain the big bang, do show how multiple big bangs could result and are probably inevitable from such a scenario. To this end Guth and Linde see big bang theory as being part of inflationary theory.

Still. It is based on your interpretations of the data.

What is the scientific theory for a god?

And where in the Bible it is said that scientific theories are true?

Show that time has not always existed.

If there was an infinite amount of time in the past, the present would be a contradiction, since there would be the need for an infinite amount of time to pass in order to reach the present.

What is negative plausibility? And I haven't said anything about multiverse theory, since I don't subscribe to that.

Negative plausibility means that it is easier for God to exist then infinite non-detectable big bangs in a multiverse. You very first post in sciforums was about multiverse:
"Multiple Big Bangs and their Origin"

LOL, except that theists do not believe they are speculating, they claim knowledge.

We do have evidence.

But they can never meet. Science is based on reason and religion is based on irrationality.

And our laws are based on the 10 commandments God gave to us through Moses...

An hypothesis is not a belief. And I believe many things when evidence is presented. You seem to have some hang up about 'beliefs" as if believing something is irrational. A belief can be either based on reason or not. One is rational and the other isn't, but both are beliefs. But big bang theory is a formal scientific theory. Rational belief based on this inductive theory is perfectly valid.

No. When you believe in something that is true, you KNOW it. That is the very definition of knowledge. Yet, if you wnat, you can choose not to believe that the earth is round, even though you KNOW it is. The very same thing with things in the Bible, and also scientific things.

But then perhaps we will continue to evolve and all our combined intelligences merge together and we in turn merge with other intelligences in the universe, and then surpass mere matter and then beyond energy and beyond time to realize that we have discovered everything. At which point we can say, "let there be light", and create the universe, and see that it is good.

You have just discovered Christianity...

Now I question your intelligence. Is it more intelligenct to know how to live in harmony with each other or to know about how the physical universe works?

Without independent evidence you are more likely to be a psychotic delusional. At the very least you are irrational.

Can I be irrational and still say rational things?

To have knowledge you must have facts. You don't have any. Your claim is irrational.

I have them in my life.

LOL. But don't worry I have no illusions about your importance.

Gooooood...

 

[Cris]

Truthseeker,

First of all I'm NOT religious.

If you have faith in a god then you are religious.

From Webster: Religious = relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Have you ever heard of "multiverse" and "multiple big bangs"? How is that more possible or believable then God?

Multiverse tends to refer to parallel universes, multiple big bangs tends to refer to concurrent or serial big bangs.

The latter at least is based on natural laws many of which we understand. A god requires an entirely different reality outside of natural law and of which we have zero evidence. That makes any natural law based speculation more plausible than a supernatural version.

The universe cannot create intelligent life unless the universe has intelligent life.

Early life was not intelligent. Intelligent life evolved. Intelligent life was therefore not created. Your assertion is therefore invalid.

Something must first to be possible in order to occur.

Agreed. And at this time no one can show that a god is possible.

It is a hypothesis. It is part of the scientific method. It has nothing to do with belief, rational or irrational.

If you says it is true without knowing it, it is a belief.

Read what I said. It is a hypothesis. I am not claiming it is true. We don't know it is true until there is evidence to support the hypothesis, and at that point we can formerly declare a theory. Even then truth is inductive, i.e. probabilistic.

And where in the Bible it is said that scientific theories are true?

Modern science was unknown to the bible authors, and presumably to God as well otherwise he might have had it included. So clearly the bible is no authority on anything that could be considered scientific.

Show that time has not always existed.

If there was an infinite amount of time in the past, the present would be a contradiction, since there would be the need for an infinite amount of time to pass in order to reach the present.

LOL. That is total gibberish; a silly play on words. Infinity is something that has no boundaries. Regarding infinite time: Time could stretch into the past without meeting a boundary as well as stretching into the future without meeting a boundary.

We do have evidence.

You only have claims for evidence. The latest was the casket with the names of Jesus, James, and Joseph on it. And that has been appropriately discredited just like all the other claims. But I'm sure you have claims of many other types.

When you believe in something that is true, you KNOW it.

That's fine. But truth can only be determined via evidence. If there is no evidence then you can't make a claim for truth. And without evidence knowledge cannot be achieved.

Now I question your intelligence. Is it more intelligence to know how to live in harmony with each other or to know about how the physical universe works?

Why must there be a choice? Once you have achieved harmony, what then? Curiosity is another valid pursuit of human life.

To have knowledge you must have facts. You don't have any. Your claim is irrational.

I have them in my life.

No, you only have dreams and hopes that you are mistaking as truths. It doesn't matter how hard you want to believe something, if evidence is absent then you cannot claim to KNOW anything.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

If you have faith in a god then you are religious.

No. A religious thing is something that we do as a ritual, only because we are told to do so. There is no such thing in Christianity.

From Webster: Religious = relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

My pastor has the above definition. And he also uses Webster.

The latter at least is based on natural laws many of which we understand. A god requires an entirely different reality outside of natural law and of which we have zero evidence. That makes any natural law based speculation more plausible than a supernatural version.

How is God not compatible with the natural laws? And are you trying to put God under the laws He made Himself?

Early life was not intelligent. Intelligent life evolved. Intelligent life was therefore not created. Your assertion is therefore invalid.

It doesn't matter. If intelligent life is possible, then there must be something in the universe that makes it possible.If it is not in the universe's nature to be conscious, then it is not possible for the universe to create such thing.

Agreed. And at this time no one can show that a god is possible.

There's plenty of evidence out there...

Read what I said. It is a hypothesis. I am not claiming it is true. We don't know it is true until there is evidence to support the hypothesis, and at that point we can formerly declare a theory. Even then truth is inductive, i.e. probabilistic.

Which means you will never know anything for sure...

Modern science was unknown to the bible authors, and presumably to God as well otherwise he might have had it included. So clearly the bible is no authority on anything that could be considered scientific.

And so does science have no authority on anything that is in the Bible.

LOL. That is total gibberish; a silly play on words. Infinity is something that has no boundaries. Regarding infinite time: Time could stretch into the past without meeting a boundary as well as stretching into the future without meeting a boundary.

If you have infinite time in the past, how can you be in the present today?:bugeye:

You only have claims for evidence. The latest was the casket with the names of Jesus, James, and Joseph on it. And that has been appropriately discredited just like all the other claims. But I'm sure you have claims of many other types.

There are miracles.

Why must there be a choice? Once you have achieved harmony, what then? Curiosity is another valid pursuit of human life.

Look at this world and you will realize you have made a choice.

No, you only have dreams and hopes that you are mistaking as truths. It doesn't matter how hard you want to believe something, if evidence is absent then you cannot claim to KNOW anything.

I had prayers being answered, and my grandma had too.

 

[Cris]

truthseeker,

No. A religious thing is something that we do as a ritual,

I religiously eat breakfast every morning. That doesn't make me religious.

only because we are told to do so.

What? This is nonsense.

There is no such thing in Christianity.

Whatever. Your point makes no sense. If you believe in and worship or have faith in a god then you are religious.

I don't understand your objection to this essentially non-controversial label. Why make an issue of something that is obvious to everyone else?

A god requires an entirely different reality outside of natural law and of which we have zero evidence.

How is God not compatible with the natural laws? And are you trying to put God under the laws He made Himself?

I didn't mention compatibility. The claims for his existence require abilities and capabilities that are beyond our current knowledge of natural laws. This is usually understood to mean a realm known as the supernatural. It simply means something beyond our abilities to detect and hence we cannot even know if such a being or a realm exists, or is even possible.

If intelligent life is possible, then there must be something in the universe that makes it possible. If it is not in the universe's nature to be conscious, then it is not possible for the universe to create such thing.

OK to a point. The mechanism the universe has used is evolution, but that isn't an intelligent mechanism and doesn’t need to be so.

Obviously human intelligence has evolved from lesser intelligent animals and those in turn evolved from animals less intelligent than themselves. Looking backwards we can see that the earliest intelligence evolved from non-intelligence. This is consistent with everything we observe in real life, everything develops from simpler forms.

It is claimed that humans created the computer but that is not true. If we go back 100 years could a human design and build a modern computer? No of course not. The evolution of the computer has been possible through external agents, e.g. humans, who have made painfully slow discoveries that have allowed the computer to become more complex. Each discovery and adaptation has caused a new evolved state. It is fully expected that the computer will very soon achieve a level of intelligence that exceeds humans.

Clearly complexity always results from simpler states and not the reverse.

There's plenty of evidence out there...

No there isn't. But if there were you can very easily prove me wrong by showing one single piece of evidence that proves that a god exists.

Which means you will never know anything for sure...

And that is reality.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

And so does science have no authority on anything that is in the Bible.

This sounds like a childish, me too, response. The bible has no scientific basis and is effectively irrelevant for science.

If you have infinite time in the past, how can you be in the present today?

Stop thinking of infinity as a numerical quantity, it isn't. Infinity cannot be manipulated within mathematics, except to show a limit beyond which the value is undefined. It is something that doesn't have a boundary.

There are miracles.

There are claims for miracles, and none have been proved true. But again you can easily prove me wrong by showing the supporting evidence for just one single alleged miracle.

Why must there be a choice? Once you have achieved harmony, what then? Curiosity is another valid pursuit of human life.

Look at this world and you will realize you have made a choice.

Your answer makes no sense.

I had prayers being answered, and my grandma had too.

As far as we know all you have done is make claims to these alleged events. Unless you have independent evidence then you have no way to distinguish your claims from delusions.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

I religiously eat breakfast every morning. That doesn't make me religious.

Yes, it does...

What? This is nonsense.

And yet...

Whatever. Your point makes no sense. If you believe in and worship or have faith in a god then you are religious.

Nope that makes me no religious. What makes me religious is if I start, for example, praying a set amount of times per day to make me worthy in God's eyes (which is a stupid thing to do). That would be a religious thing to do.

I don't understand your objection to this essentially non-controversial label. Why make an issue of something that is obvious to everyone else?

Because you, atheists, define things out of prejudice. You define what religious means, but that doesn't mean we are truly religious. Our relationship with God is almost no different then our relationship with one another.

The claims for his existence require abilities and capabilities that are beyond our current knowledge of natural laws. This is usually understood to mean a realm known as the supernatural. It simply means something beyond our abilities to detect and hence we cannot even know if such a being or a realm exists, or is even possible.

Sounds like multiverse again...
If you would tell a scientist 100 years ago about Quantum physics he would probably say you are religious....

It is claimed that humans created the computer but that is not true. If we go back 100 years could a human design and build a modern computer? No of course not. The evolution of the computer has been possible through external agents, e.g. humans, who have made painfully slow discoveries that have allowed the computer to become more complex. Each discovery and adaptation has caused a new evolved state. It is fully expected that the computer will very soon achieve a level of intelligence that exceeds humans.

Yes. But when we didn't have the computer, the computer was still possible, there was still a possibility for the existance of the computer. This is defined by the universe itself. A computer is part of the universe nature since it is a possibility. All that is possible is part of the nature of the universe. In the same way, for intelligent life to exist, the universe must first have the possibility. If there is no possibility, then the human being cannot exist. Since we do exist, we need something or actually someone in the universe to make us a possibility, and God is the best canditate for that...

Clearly complexity always results from simpler states and not the reverse.

There is nothing more complex then simplicity. Simplicity must contain all that the complex does, but in a condensed form. Simplicity is by far more complex then complexity.

No there isn't. But if there were you can very easily prove me wrong by showing one single piece of evidence that proves that a god exists.

Maybe you should find a church around that is making a special healing service... for example...

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

So you are seeking something that you cannot totally prove right and even your basic laws are like that? Good luck finding Truth.... you will need it...

This sounds like a childish, me too, response. The bible has no scientific basis and is effectively irrelevant for science.

And so is the other way around. You said:
"What is the scientific theory for a god? "
I answered:
"And where in the Bible it is said that scientific theories are true?"

In the same way there is no scientific theory for a god, there is no where in the Bible where it is said that scientific theories are true. You cannot compare them by themselves, you have to go in another way.

Stop thinking of infinity as a numerical quantity, it isn't. Infinity cannot be manipulated within mathematics, except to show a limit beyond which the value is undefined. It is something that doesn't have a boundary.

I understand forever as "for an infinite time in the future". Is that the infinite you are talking about?

There are claims for miracles, and none have been proved true. But again you can easily prove me wrong by showing the supporting evidence for just one single alleged miracle.

It is even better if you look for a church around where they do miracles... You can see with your own eyes...

Your answer makes no sense.

"You: Why must there be a choice? Once you have achieved harmony, what then? Curiosity is another valid pursuit of human life."
"Me: Look at this world and you will realize you have made a choice."

Ok... look...
You have chosen to pursue knowledge, over harmony. You cannot choose both. Look at this world today. Humanity clearly made a choice of pursuing knowledge over harmony. For example, we have nukes, but not even one country has no prisioners.

As far as we know all you have done is make claims to these alleged events. Unless you have independent evidence then you have no way to distinguish your claims from delusions.

I HAVE evidence. My grandma didn't died of whatever (I think was cancer, but I'm not sure. When she had the problem I wasn't born yet) and my dad didn't died when the plane he would catch crashed.

 

[secretasianman]

Hi all - I didn't get a chance to read all of the links provided (school) but plan to when time allows. I'm enjoying the "Biological Basis of Morality" and have skimmed the other articles provided... will "discuss" later.

 

[Cris]

truthseeker,

There is nothing more complex then simplicity. Simplicity must contain all that the complex does, but in a condensed form. Simplicity is by far more complex then complexity.

I'm sure you can prove that black = white as well.

With reasoning like that you really are a waste of time.

Dream on kiddo.

Take care.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker

Because you, atheists, define things out of prejudice. You define what religious means, but that doesn't mean we are truly religious. Our relationship with God is almost no different then our relationship with one another.

Cris, i think he is right in this aspect. Atheists take on everyone who believes in God, as per his own understanding of God not withstanding what any religion defines what God is.

but if someone does not fully / partially agree with definition God as prescribed by religion, then atheists label him "atheist" forgetting that he never told "There is no God"

why this contradiction .. or is it a matter of convenience..

 

[Darwin Disciple]

re·li·gious __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(r-ljs)
adj.

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

n. pl. religious

A member of a monastic order, especially a nun or monk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin religisus, from religi, religion. See religion.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
re·ligious·ly adv.
re·ligious·ness n.

Synonyms: religious, devout, pious
These adjectives mean having or showing a belief in and veneration for God or a divine power, especially as it is reflected in the practice of religion. Religious implies adherence to religion in both belief and practice: The cathedral at Chartres is an expression of the religious fervor of the Middle Ages. Devout connotes ardent faith and sincere devotion: Devout Muslims observe Ramadan punctiliously. Pious stresses dutiful, reverential discharge of religious duties: a pious woman who attends Mass every morning.

 

[secretasianman]

Although I still haven't read all the links, I'd like to discuss a few points raised...

The two arguments provided weren't meant to prove the existence of the Christian God (as stated at least three times), merely to make the reader think "outside" the Big Bang, or perhaps more correctly, outside of what is immediately apparent to the senses. This doesn't begin to address the possibility that God is a woman, many women, a formless cloud, etc. - these are the questions one is supposed to ask... I suppose it's difficult to know when one has "the entire picture"; at the very least there are better places to look than the internet (I read Thomas Ash's essay, and then his other essays on theism, and I'm not impressed - will explain if asked) like say, a church (I know that being in Berkeley around such intelligent people, Christian and non-Christian, is a blessing from any point of view)

As far as whether or not God is "good", etc. or whether that limits the definition of what God is (tiassa, if you're reading this... ), I don't see how creating a world full of evil would be outside of God's ability... yet it seems that a FAR more significant question is why God created the world the way he did - perhaps the question that Christians have asked in order to come to believe "God is good"...

More thoughts later as they come, and as time allows...

P.S. Reading over the article I transcribed at 6:30 AM was a treat, and an endorsement of the spell-check function:

abou tit

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by everneo
... if someone does not fully / partially agree with definition God as prescribed by religion, then atheists label him "atheist" forgetting that he never told "There is no God" why this contradiction .. or is it a matter of convenience..

What are you talking about? What atheists do this? The complaint is so arbitrary and unsubstantiated that it doesn't even rise to the level of strawman.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by secretasianman
... yet it seems that a FAR more significant question is why God created the world the way he did

The "FAR more significant question", in my opinion, is

• What methodology is to be used to select one answer to question Q and dismiss all others?

As I've noted elswhere, all selections seem based on the following two principles:

1. My revelation says that my revelation is better than your revelation.
2. It seems to me that a Supernatural God would act just like a really nice Natural Guy.

Far better to proclaim oneself an agnostic theist, embracing God(s) on faith alone while insisting that nothing of God(s) nature is knowable.

 

[secretasianman]

Consequent - duly noted. Would you send me a PM describing how you arrived at your conclusion (all selections seem based on 2 principles)?

Must examine apologetics, Biblical claims, other major and minor world religions and isms... after sleep and work.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by secretasianman
Would you send me a PM describing how you arrived at your conclusion (all selections seem based on 2 principles)?

I prefer transparency. Suggest a 3rd and we'll discuss it here.

 

[everneo]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What are you talking about? What atheists do this? The complaint is so arbitrary and unsubstantiated that it doesn't even rise to the level of strawman.

Now u r setting up a true strawman trap. neither me nor cris will fall..and u know that..

btw, nice to hear u.!