The Religion Discussion

[York]

delete anything reported by Fox...oh it says opinion...wow!

[York]

well its obvious that Habit7 is absolutely wrong anyway.

obvious and absolute too...how come habit didn't know that?

[Habit7]

well its obvious that Habit7 is absolutely wrong anyway.

obvious and absolute too...how come habit didn't know that?

Because we obviously have different ideas of what is absolute truth.

[Slartibartfast]

How is your "god of the gaps" allegation of me any different than your 'nature of the gaps' faith?

Because you say "this is the absolute truth" and shy away from arguments that prove you wrong.

Well if anything in this thread is that I have not shy away from arguments. Not counting your "break" from the last argument Secondly you can't say I'm wrong unless you also claim absolute truth. Luckily the only "absolute truth" I need is that your arguments are based on assumptions that are potentially wrong regardless of what you believe (i.e. my absolute truth is that your claim for absolute truth is unfounded)

Science can only claim absolute truth on current empirical observations we have access to. Explanations on the past are speculative, not absolute. Science can only explain natural phenomena. Therefore the hope that nature created itself naturally is an infinite regress and a fool's errand.This assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics Nature has to come from a supernatural source,This assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics science can't tell you thatThis assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics because science is incapable of empirically observing the past,Absence of evidence to disprove your God is not proof that your God exists, i.e. this is irrelevant to your argument far less the origin.This assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics

This has to do with logic not science.lol. Amazing that you can make a sentence that contains more errors than words

[Chimera]

Habit can you explain why God allows earthquakes that kill thousands and destroy millions in infrastructure but then will change his mind and do the miracle of saving one baby or a random church in the midst of everything? He's a kinda muffler bearing or something?

[maj. tom]

well you see, God works in mysterious ways.

[MG Man]

y'know, I can deal with god being a sadistic fck and doing crap like that, but what annoys me is the mortal asshats who will post pic of said baby amidst the rotting corpses and praise god for his miracle. Do these chessefuckers even think?????

[Slartibartfast]

You will have to check the bible to see if thinking cheesefuckers are mentioned

[HSA]

one has to then think about the child who will grow up without parents not knowing what his mother's love was like................and here in trini we have some mothers who killing infants and only here for the sex....not thinking of the consequenses of sex.....animal behaviour..only here to satisfy their urges...damn skanks...hoodrats...anyway...i better satisfy my urge also......brb...

[Habit7]

Science can only explain natural phenomena. Therefore the hope that nature created itself naturally is an infinite regress and a fool's errand.This assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics

I don't know how you came to that assumption but the pioneers of physics held a creationist worldview and from them we got the "world of physics" so your point is moot.

Habit can you explain why God allows earthquakes that kill thousands and destroy millions in infrastructure but then will change his mind and do the miracle of saving one baby or a random church in the midst of everything? He's a kinda muffler bearing or something?

Where do you get the assumption that God cannot terminate the lives of His fallen creation whether in a calamity or from pneumonia at 105 years old?

[Slartibartfast]

Science can only explain natural phenomena. Therefore the hope that nature created itself naturally is an infinite regress and a fool's errand.This assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics

I don't know how you came to that assumption but the pioneers of physics held a creationist worldview and from them we got the "world of physics" so your point is moot.

Who are these pioneers of physics that you speak of? The majority of scientists to have ever lived are in fact alive today. How many of the current pioneers of physics hold a "creationist world view"? By "creationists world view" do you mean that the world is only a few thousand years old? Because if that's the case then it drives my point home that science long since advanced beyond the primitive teachings of religion. And further more it was advanced by some of the very people that believed in that foolishness. Again, I'm am amazed that pointing out the errors is your argument is twice as long as your argument itself. I have never seen anyone as efficiently wrong as you are.

[Slartibartfast]

Where do you get the assumption that God cannot terminate the lives of His fallen creation whether in a calamity or from pneumonia at 105 years old?

So you are saying that even babies are his fallen creation even though they never had a chance to do wrong?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Where do you get the assumption that God cannot terminate the lives of His fallen creation whether in a calamity or from pneumonia at 105 years old?

So you are saying that even babies are his fallen creation even though they never had a chance to do wrong?

Christians believe in original sin. “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God's eyes as a direct result of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.”

[Habit7]

Who are these pioneers of physics that you speak of?

It doesnt surprise me that you ask this question since I had to point out to you the inconsistency in your analogy that systems can independently set themselves in motion and thus become ordered, violating Newton's laws of motion. That being said Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Prescott Joule, Lord Kelvin, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler....to name a few.

Where do you get the assumption that God cannot terminate the lives of His fallen creation whether in a calamity or from pneumonia at 105 years old?

So you are saying that even babies are his fallen creation even though they never had a chance to do wrong?

Babies, adults, ducks, elephants, comets, trash cans, shoelaces, etc are all constituents of a fallen world because the first Adam's deed plunged it all into a destiny of ultimate destruction. This has nothing to do with our individual actions.

Our individual actions makes us guilty before God for eternal punishment because we have sinned before the eternally worthy God. Jesus, the second Adam, lived that sinless life not worthy of eternal punishment. But in submission to the Father, He was the propitiation as He bore the sins of those who would believe in Him and suffered their eternal punishment on the cross because He is eternally worthy. Three days later He rose again to demonstrate that we must die to our sin in repentance towards God and rise in new life in Him through faith of Jesus' righteousness being placed on our own individual account.

Babies when they die are saved by His grace from eternal punishment through Jesus. People are punished by God for their deeds done in unrighteousness, babies are not punished because their deeds are done in ignorance.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ just to be clear

The result for Adam's actions are passed on to ALL souls and persons.
The result for Jesus' (the second Adam) actions are passed on only to those who would believe in Him.

correct?

and up to what age is considered a "baby"?

[Slartibartfast]

It doesnt surprise me that you ask this question since I had to point out to you the inconsistency in your analogy that systems can independently set themselves in motion and thus become ordered, violating Newton's laws of motion.

Section 4
In my example I was illustrating that intelligent input was not needed in order to produce what may seem like a organised system. I was not arguing the origin of the energy in the ball. Just the fact that it is a closed system with no energy input/output...

That being said Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Prescott Joule, Lord Kelvin, Blaise Pascal, Johannes Kepler....to name a few.

... it drives my point home that science long since advanced beyond the primitive teachings of religion. And further more it was advanced by some of the very people that believed in that foolishness....

Serious question, Habit7 are you an atheist satirically arguing in favour of Christianity to show how foolish everything about it is? You are doing a great job t that by misquoting/misunderstanding basic arguments, refusing to follow through with actual arguments, making all of your arguments riddled with red herring and straw man fallacies and just randomly quoting what I assume is scripture but can easily be mistaken or the ramblings of a mad man.

Where do you get the assumption that God cannot terminate the lives of His fallen creation whether in a calamity or from pneumonia at 105 years old?

So you are saying that even babies are his fallen creation even though they never had a chance to do wrong?

Babies, adults, ducks, elephants, comets, trash cans, shoelaces, etc are all constituents of a fallen world because the first Adam's deed plunged it all into a destiny of ultimate destruction. This has nothing to do with our individual actions.

So was God unable or unwilling to fix a defect that occurred in the very first iteration of his creation? If it's the former then he is not a perfect creator as he made a imperfect creation (if he is an imperfect creator then he is imperfect). If it the latter then he is just as @sshole and being an @sshole is wrong (unless it is being used to rid the body of waste).... Being and @sshole=wrong=not perfect). Are you telling me that the bible says that God is not Perfect? Why do you still believe that he is?

Our individual actions makes us guilty before God for eternal punishment because we have sinned before the eternally worthy God. Jesus, the second Adam, lived that sinless life not worthy of eternal punishment. But in submission to the Father, He was the propitiation as He bore the sins of those who would believe in Him and suffered their eternal punishment on the cross because He is eternally worthy. Three days later He rose again to demonstrate that we must die to our sin in repentance towards God and rise in new life in Him through faith of Jesus' righteousness being placed on our own individual account.

Any independent references to him rising from the dead after three days or am I supposed just believe that old book of yours?

Babies when they die are saved by His grace from eternal punishment through Jesus. People are punished by God for their deeds done in unrighteousness, babies are not punished because their deeds are done in ignorance.

Independent references and proof (note: it does not have to be direct or empirical proof)

[Habit7]

^ just to be clear

The result for Adam's actions are passed on to ALL souls and persons.
The result for Jesus' (the second Adam) actions are passed on only to those who would believe in Him.

correct?

and up to what age is considered a "baby"?

Adam's action plunged the entire world into a fallen state as a matter of it's fallen nature. We however, are judged based on our deeds, not Adam's action.
Jesus' righteousness is imputed to those who repent of their sin and trust in Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

The Bible doesn't give an age, but more like a level, which could include those with mental retardation. God is going to judge fairly He knows who is accountable for their sin. In Jonah 4:11 God explains He spares Nineveh through the preaching of Jonah because there were "120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals"

Serious question, Habit7 are you an atheist satirically arguing in favour of Christianity to show how foolish everything about it is? You are doing a great job t that by misquoting/misunderstanding basic arguments, refusing to follow through with actual arguments, making all of your arguments riddled with red herring and straw man fallacies and just randomly quoting what I assume is scripture but can easily be mistaken or the ramblings of a mad man.

It seems like I need to give you a run down of what is prior to this very posts for all to see.

I said that belief in the supernatural is an obvious outcome from the observable natural. You claimed "this assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics." I said you are wrong because physics was founded by those whose studies of the natural world flowed from a conviction of a supernatural Creator who orders and governs the world. You doubted. I listed the foundational thinkers of "the world of physics" who were all ardent theists and rather than you say "mea cupla" you are going on another errant tirade. That is why I give our little discussion a rest, you invalided atheism and want to draw me into a fantasy world of snapshot systems but you are not rational enough to admit your wrong. Well except for the time that I proved to you we cant live without religion, which you did admit I was right, which would invalid this discussion too but, who's counting?

And with regard to how your fallible mind thinks how God should redeem His fallen world in accordance with your errant approval:

[nareshseep]

[Habit7]

If atheism is right: 6,800,000,000 people are wrong

This is not an argument from popularity but hey, it is still very convincing when you make a. meme about it

[nareshseep]

If atheism is right: 6,800,000,000 people are wrong

This is not an argument from popularity but hey, it is still very convincing when you make a. meme about it

Nope just means 6,800,000,000 are nearly atheists, since All theists are partial atheists who only believe in their gawd but reject the oddar gawds. And yup Atheists are correct, you can do it, just disblieve one gawd...

Is the glass half full or half empty ?[/quote]

[Habit7]

If atheism is right: 6,800,000,000 people are wrong

This is not an argument from popularity but hey, it is still very convincing when you make a. meme about it

Nope just means 6,800,000,000 are nearly atheists, since All theists are partial atheists who only believe in their gawd but reject the oddar gawds. And yup Atheists are correct, you can do it, just disblieve one gawd...

[/quote]

[nareshseep]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=8680623&hilit=poly+Atheist#p8680623

William Craig is wrong.

Atheism is the non-belief of ALL gawds.
Every theist is a partial atheist, since they believe in their gawd but the non existence of other gawds. The opposite of (poly)atheism is belief in all gawds (polytheist), If you are not a polytheist you are a partial theist/atheist. The majority of theist are gnostic theist and of atheists the majority are agnostic atheists.

[Slartibartfast]

"

Serious question, Habit7 are you an atheist satirically arguing in favour of Christianity to show how foolish everything about it is? You are doing a great job t that by misquoting/misunderstanding basic arguments, refusing to follow through with actual arguments, making all of your arguments riddled with red herring and straw man fallacies and just randomly quoting what I assume is scripture but can easily be mistaken or the ramblings of a mad man.

It seems like I need to give you a run down of what is prior to this very posts for all to see.

I said that belief in the supernatural is an obvious outcome from the observable natural.this is wrong You claimed "this assumes that there are nothing left to discover in the world of physics."You have yet to prove this wrong I said you are wrong because physics was founded by those whose studies of the natural world flowed from a conviction of a supernatural Creator who orders and governs the world.and although they were founders of a lot of theories, we have advanced a lot further since then so this has nothing to do with the argument (red herring) You doubted. I listed the foundational thinkers of "the world of physics" who were all ardent theists and rather than you say "mea cupla" you are going on another errant tirade. Errant because you say it is errant, yet you fail to point out my errors... hmmm That is why I give our little discussion a rest, I.e. shy away from the argument you invalided atheism and want to draw me into a fantasy world of snapshot systems again... you ran from this argument before its conclusion and now state an incorrect conclusion for an argument that you had difficulty understanding and then later refused to understand because you saw where you would be proven wrong but you are not rational enough to admit your wrong. I never had an issue owning up to my mistakes. You in the other hand blatantly ignore any argument where you are proven wrong Well except for the time that I proved to you we cant live without religion, which you did admit I was right, which would invalid this discussion too but, who's counting?Lol.... sad that you need to count a sarcastic pity win given to you to get you to shut up about irrelevant arguments. ... However, I am not one to go back on my word so I shall agree to let you keep that win

And with regard to how your fallible mind thinks how God should redeem His fallen world in accordance with your errant approval:
So God is basically a spoiled brat... remind me again what makes him worthy of worship...

So You are a satirical atheist then... Seriouly, almost nothing in your entire post was factual, even regarding arguments you were a part of. It's as though you assume something is true because you say it

[Habit7]

http://www.trinituner.com/v3/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&p=8680623&hilit=poly+Atheist#p8680623

William Craig is wrong.

Atheism is the non-belief of ALL gawds.
Every theist is a partial atheist, since they believe in their gawd but the non existence of other gawds. The opposite of (poly)atheism is belief in all gawds (polytheist), If you are not a polytheist you are a partial theist/atheist. The majority of theist are gnostic theist and of atheists the majority are agnostic atheists.

Well Craig holds the definitive view of atheism, so in case you dont know what it is, I hope you can read it because it seems that you won't believe something unless its in a meme.

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).

Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987)

Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God" (Charles Darwin's Letter to Rev. J Fordyc, July 7, 1879)

and although they were founders of a lot of theories, we have advanced a lot further since then so this has nothing to do with the argument (red herring)

Firstly this is not a red herring. It is a direct address and refutation of your aforementioned belief that belief in the supernatural stops physics, on the contrary, it started physics.

Secondly these men didnt just find theories, they discovered laws.

Thirdly physics hasn't advanced further than these men, it has only built on their work while constantly referencing them. E.g. the Kepler spacecraft is our leading tool for the discovery of Earth-like planets.

Purposely I break off the dream and the very vast speculation, merely crying out with the royal Psalmist: Great is our Lord and great His virtue and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him, ye heavens, praise Him, ye sun, moon, and planets, use every sense for perceiving, every tongue for declaring your Creator…to Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen.

Johann Kepler, Father of Physical Astronomy

So God is basically a spoiled brat... remind me again what makes him worthy of worship...

So because you think God is mean, that means He doesn't exist?

[Slartibartfast]

The desire for knowledge always has and always will drive physics. This is independent of supernatural beliefs or interactions. It was only possible for physics to start from a place of ignorance. Part of that ignorance was a belief in the supernatural. That does not mean the supernatural started physics. It is not even proof for the supernatural. It just proves that silly beliefs are more prevalent where knowledge is lacking.

Now my argument belief in the supernatural is harmful to physics is because believers assert it as the absolute truth and therefore have no need or drive to engage in the pursuit of knowledge anymore because they believe they have the answer. In science all answers are up for debate as the pursuit of knowledge is never ending. That is how belief in the supernatural hinders physics and science in general.

TLDR: Religion claims absolute knowledge and places all importance on the answer. In science, the questions are always held in highest regard as they shape the answers and the answers are subject to change.

As for the last point I'm not bothering to argue about the God you believe in... just the fact that he is clearly not everything that you thought you created him to be.

[meccalli]

You don't seem to grasp the principles of natural philosophy when you speak of the supernatural. They are exclusive.

[Habit7]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Planck is well known as a physicist. Not a philosopher.

[meccalli]

What? lol, science exists under a philosophical framework.

[Habit7]

Planck is well known as a physicist. Not a philosopher.

it was in response to slarti's musings on physics, not meccalli philosophy point.