For the same reason you don't believe in flying pigs: there are no gods in this particular section of the universe.
The Bible. Myth or Reality?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
You've seen God's creation and God doesn't exist?
I didn't say I don't believe in flying pigs.
jan.
I've seen part of the universe (about as much as you have, I suppose) and there's no sign of any god in it.
Do you?
Jan Ardena:
Consider the possibility that sometimes merry-go-rounds land in the street from the sky.
Consider the possibility that I have extrasensory perception and I can read your thoughts.
Consider the possibility that the oceans all used to be yellow rather than blue.
Consider the possibility that Bigfoot is real and running around in Utah.
Consider Russell's teapot in orbit about the Sun.
Consider the possibility that there is a real Santa Claus who has flying reindeer and delivers presents to kids on Christmas eve.
Consider the possibility that gravity will reverse tomorrow and we'll all fall upwards off the Earth.
Presumably, you will claim you neither believe nor disbelieve in any of these things. None of them is impossible, you will agree. And presumably none of them is of any "real consequence" to you.
Are you really asking us to believe that you cannot commit yourself to a position on whether any of these things exists in reality or not? If so, it seems to me that your mind really is so open that your brain may be in imminent danger of falling out. Is it really true that you will commit to no better than "I haven't seen any merry-go-rounds falling from the sky in this section of the universe"?
You're ready to accept that just about anything is possible. If it isn't possible according to natural laws, then you say just add some supernatural into the mix! If it's completely outside your experience, then your assumption is that it is your experience that is at fault. And yet, at the same time you have total and complete trust in what is written by a few "authorities" you happen to favour. There's no need to check whether those things are real or possible, because (a) anything is possible, and (b) you just trust those guys to tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because really that's God talking to you.
It's a mindset that I find interesting but very hard to fathom. Also, I can never tell whether you're sincere or not.
Ok. For example...
Consider the possibility that sometimes merry-go-rounds land in the street from the sky.
Consider the possibility that I have extrasensory perception and I can read your thoughts.
Consider the possibility that the oceans all used to be yellow rather than blue.
Consider the possibility that Bigfoot is real and running around in Utah.
Consider Russell's teapot in orbit about the Sun.
Consider the possibility that there is a real Santa Claus who has flying reindeer and delivers presents to kids on Christmas eve.
Consider the possibility that gravity will reverse tomorrow and we'll all fall upwards off the Earth.
Presumably, you will claim you neither believe nor disbelieve in any of these things. None of them is impossible, you will agree. And presumably none of them is of any "real consequence" to you.
Are you really asking us to believe that you cannot commit yourself to a position on whether any of these things exists in reality or not? If so, it seems to me that your mind really is so open that your brain may be in imminent danger of falling out. Is it really true that you will commit to no better than "I haven't seen any merry-go-rounds falling from the sky in this section of the universe"?
My point is that you ought to be more careful about what you accept on the basis of somebody's say-so in a written text. it seems to me that you place far too much trust in the authors of your favorite "scriptures". If they had written about merry-go-rounds falling from the sky, you'd be a merry-go-round theist. If they had written about the yellow oceans, you'd be a yellow-ocean theist.Jan Ardena said:
You're ready to accept that just about anything is possible. If it isn't possible according to natural laws, then you say just add some supernatural into the mix! If it's completely outside your experience, then your assumption is that it is your experience that is at fault. And yet, at the same time you have total and complete trust in what is written by a few "authorities" you happen to favour. There's no need to check whether those things are real or possible, because (a) anything is possible, and (b) you just trust those guys to tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because really that's God talking to you.
It's a mindset that I find interesting but very hard to fathom. Also, I can never tell whether you're sincere or not.
I didn't say that.
I can't really argue against that with you, because no matter what I say it always comes back to this. Your opinion of me.
You obviously do not comprehend how it is that someone can believe in God. So you use your own experience (reading, state education etc...) to conclude that it is simply nonsense. That I believe in God because I read somewhere.
You need to step down from your high horse, and listen intently to what I, or other theists say, if you want to understand how this thing works.
I don't mean this in a bad way JamesR, as I like your persona, and always have. But you are quite arrogant.
It's either your way (or the way you follow), or no way. You are not prepared to even try and comprehend what theism is really all about. That is the reason why you cannot tell whether or not I am sincere.
jan.
You said that you've seen God's creation. I'm going by your definition (as I perceive it).
Define God.
That's about what I thought you might say. My perception seems to be working.
Of course, there is no reason to think that there is a "supreme cause of all causes".
Effects have causes. Do causes need to have causes? Or is that just a meaningless gibberish "definition"?
Again, for the same reason that there is no reason to think there are flying pigs.
If every effect needs a cause, there can be no "supreme cause" that has no cause. If every effect doesn't need a cause, then no "supreme cause" is needed.
I have a good definition of flying pigs, that being a pig that can fly. As such I have good reason to think that pigs don't fly, on this planet, or in this dimension.
Nonsense. There has to be an original cause.
Again, nonsense. All effects have causes.
God isn't an effect.
jan.
This is just the Cosmological Argument - nothing new, nothing enlightening. Counter arguments for it are aplenty across t'internet. Thankfully most articles on the subject have somewhat more riveting input than "Nonsense. There has to be an original cause." 
This is just the Cosmological Argument - nothing new, nothing enlightening. Counter arguments for it are aplenty across t'internet. Thankfully most articles on the subject have somewhat more riveting input than "Nonsense. There has to be an original cause."
Why don't you think there is an original cause, meaning it has to be not caused?
jan.
spinner981
Registered Member
The Bible contains historical events that align with modern knowledge of history, as well as cities known to have existed in those times (some of which not being discovered by archaeology until much much later, hundreds of years after the Bible was canonized and spread across the globe to become the most 'popular' book in the world). It also contains parables, such as the ones spoken by Jesus, and works of writing (such as Psalms) not meant to be taken literally. The wholly reading of the Bible as exclusively literal of exclusively figurative, I believe, is the incorrect reading of it. Some parts are to be taken literally, some parts are to be taken figuratively.
Isn't that what Aristotle said?This is just the Cosmological Argument - nothing new, nothing enlightening. Counter arguments for it are aplenty across t'internet. Thankfully most articles on the subject have somewhat more riveting input than "Nonsense. There has to be an original cause."
Where have I said that I don't think there is an original cause?Jan said:
To that end, where have I said that I think there is?
I'm not certain that we can take our experience of the internal workings of this universe (where all effects appear to be caused - although QM possibly seems to suggest otherwise) and extrapolate beyond, at least not meaningfully.
The CA assumes that you can. You certainly seem to assume that we can. Presumably because to do so fits your worldview, and not to do so fits mine. Now, how are you going to show that you're correct?
spinner981
Registered Member
To that end, we can know that if the universe has a natural origin, it must have had a first cause. But if it had a supernatural origin, then it's more up in the air about whether or not there needs to be a 'first cause' (ie: an unmoved mover) to all of existence.
And therein lies the rub... what to take literally, what not. And the parts not to be taken literally: how are they to be taken?
I think he was somewhat more eloquent with regard his Unmoved Mover.