TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Slartibartfast wrote:Anyway just a taste of your circular reasoning while I await your definition or your agreement to mine.Habit7 wrote:The universe has an external cause.
That external cause is either God or abstract objects.
Abstract objects don't create.
It is God.
Removing the impossibilities from your argument (an abstract object creating)
and ignoring that any other means of creation exist your argument becomesHabit7 wrote:The universe has an external cause.
That external cause is...God ...
[Therefore] It is God.
How did "God" become part of that premise?
You are basically just saying "God is the only thing that could have created the Universe" as your premise therefore "God created the Universe". See the circular reasoning.
Slartibartfast wrote:Why don't you give me your definition and proof that God is not an abstract object (or the idea of God since that is all that can be proven to exist).
York wrote:What if the human mind was not created with the ability to fathom the substance of the creator? There is none like unto Him. What has not been observed cannot be described except with "existence with unknown nature".
bluesclues wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Why don't you give me your definition and proof that God is not an abstract object (or the idea of God since that is all that can be proven to exist).
is it so hard to logicize that because u and so many billions/trillions of creatures have a consciousness of their own, that it existed before creation and divided itself into creation? that because consciousness exists within creation means it existed pre creation. reason being.. that in this entire universe inanimate objects cannot react of their own accord. they have to wait for an action to re-act to that action. but consciousness is the only thing that can act of its own accord. i.e the big bang and creation was initiated by consciousness. and what does that mean? it means consciousness is the catalyst which requires no pre-catalyst. alpha and omega.
this anulls the need to ask, and go in circles with, what caused the big bang, and what caused what caused the big bang to act, and what caused that to cause that to cause that to react... and so on. the buck just stops with, consciousness existed in the form of pure sentience and with its own will was able to cause both action and reaction of its own accord and design the universe and its operations purposefully and with intent. this sentience, this original source of consciousness is what we call God. forget the stories for a moment. God is creator. regardless of his form which from this world appears formless and invisible until ones faculty is improved to revelation and awareness.
maj. tom wrote:guy, what're doing?
bluesclues wrote:York wrote:What if the human mind was not created with the ability to fathom the substance of the creator? There is none like unto Him. What has not been observed cannot be described except with "existence with unknown nature".
it can. the first thing that happens when God awakens you is the anointing of the Holy Spirit. when that happens your mind and body becomes aware of God's spirit and it is felt caressing you within and without from tip of toe to top of head a water flows within like a spiral waterfountain. thats what God's spirit feels like. invisible water moving like air and smoke in currents that can be felt by the body and interfaces with the mind. teaching, healing, transforming, the process begins. 24/7 it never stops after that. as you continue to grow you may be exposed to hidden and unknown attributes of God as well.
Slartibartfast wrote:bluesclues wrote:York wrote:What if the human mind was not created with the ability to fathom the substance of the creator? There is none like unto Him. What has not been observed cannot be described except with "existence with unknown nature".
it can. the first thing that happens when God awakens you is the anointing of the Holy Spirit. when that happens your mind and body becomes aware of God's spirit and it is felt caressing you within and without from tip of toe to top of head a water flows within like a spiral waterfountain. thats what God's spirit feels like. invisible water moving like air and smoke in currents that can be felt by the body and interfaces with the mind. teaching, healing, transforming, the process begins. 24/7 it never stops after that. as you continue to grow you may be exposed to hidden and unknown attributes of God as well.
You don't just go off the deep end do you. You triple axel double somersault into it with your mouth open don't you.
Slartibartfast wrote:bluesclues wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Why don't you give me your definition and proof that God is not an abstract object (or the idea of God since that is all that can be proven to exist).
is it so hard to logicize that because u and so many billions/trillions of creatures have a consciousness of their own, that it existed before creation and divided itself into creation? that because consciousness exists within creation means it existed pre creation. reason being.. that in this entire universe inanimate objects cannot react of their own accord. they have to wait for an action to re-act to that action. but consciousness is the only thing that can act of its own accord. i.e the big bang and creation was initiated by consciousness. and what does that mean? it means consciousness is the catalyst which requires no pre-catalyst. alpha and omega.
this anulls the need to ask, and go in circles with, what caused the big bang, and what caused what caused the big bang to act, and what caused that to cause that to cause that to react... and so on. the buck just stops with, consciousness existed in the form of pure sentience and with its own will was able to cause both action and reaction of its own accord and design the universe and its operations purposefully and with intent. this sentience, this original source of consciousness is what we call God. forget the stories for a moment. God is creator. regardless of his form which from this world appears formless and invisible until ones faculty is improved to revelation and awareness.
Is it so hard to logicalize that it is possible that we do not currently possess all of the knowledge that there is to be possessed? For billions and billions of year no creature on earth even knew what electricity was. For about 99.999995652% of our entire existence we did even know that electricity was the flow of electrons. Is it unreasonable to think that within 0.00000004347% of our existence maybe... just maybe... we have not had enough time to figure all of the answers?
It took the people that follow your holy book over 600 years before they realised that maybe the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. And then you want to look at the discipline of science that went from flying for 30 seconds to flying to the moon in under 100 years and say you know better?
Where is you proof? Show me your proof? Don't give me illogical circular arguments with unwarranted premises and assumptions! Two thousand years and this is still all you and all of he ancestors of your faith have to offer? There are scientists that have contributed more to our understanding of the world around us than the entirety of the existence of the Church and it's teachings.
But you go on and tell me about your fairy tales. While your at it, please inform me of what the atheists are doing today. I hope it's not as tiresome as what you said we were all supposed to be doing yesterday, robbing people by the riverside... Wednesdays are tough!
Noted... irrelevant to the actual argument but noted nonetheless.Habit7 wrote:This why we conduct inductive and deductive reasoning. We announce our ignorance on a cause, examine possible causal agents we are aware of and eliminate the possible causal agents until we arrive at a possible answer.
Because I personally do not have the answer, does that mean the answer does not exist? This is a typical "God of the gaps" argument.Habit7 wrote:You however dont have any additional possibilities, proudly admit your ignorance and that dont have an possible answer,
Habit7 wrote:but say; dont include God. Well I cant continue to argue in circle with you.
You are yet to prove why God is included in the premise. This is the root of the issue and the one thing that you continue to sidestep and refuse to answer. Now you have resorted to telling lies to get around it. Are you really that desperate?Slartibartfast wrote:That explanation is God <---- Why is this part of the premise. Why must it be God?
Can you point me to the post where you previously explained in your own words what an abstract object is and proof that God is not an abstract object. Thank you. I'll wait right here. Then again, you may just be desperately telling lies again to sidestep my question. You are like the Muhammed of argumentsHabit7 wrote:I think that is obvious that either some aspects of the argument flew over your head (abstract objects) or you are just being intellectually belligerent (why God). But is not an argument I haven't represented before and we went through this cycle before..
And even he resented the Pope's proclamation that the Big Bang Theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.bluesclues wrote:also i should point out to lovers of the big bang theory. something they may not know is, it was actually produced by a catholic priest who was a scientist.
buddum tisss.
York wrote:The only argument you can win a mad man is the one to convince him that he is sane...
If the Holy Spirit makes ppl looney, no matter how much you desire to experience it, that ain't the spirit of God, it's psychosis!
Slartibartfast wrote:And even he resented the Pope's proclamation that the Big Bang Theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.bluesclues wrote:also i should point out to lovers of the big bang theory. something they may not know is, it was actually produced by a catholic priest who was a scientist.
buddum tisss.
Bazinga!
PS. Please excuse me if I ignore the other ramblings of a madman. Kinda caught up doing evil things cuz I have no morals (according you you and your views on what atheists are like) #justatheistthings.
Edit: Bonus round. Fifty points to Gyffindor if you can guess which of the following consumed Lemaître coming down to the twilight of his life. Which one did he really love more to dedicate his remaining years to
1. Religion
2. Mathematics/ Science
How's dem bonus facts for you
Slartibartfast wrote:Looks like I really touched a nerve there. He kept religion and science separate as any good scientist does and said that the theory of the big bang was neutral. I.e. it didn't prove or disprove Christianity.
Scientists are now searching for the origin of the big bang which may noy be as neutral.
But then again, he was just a scientist, you on the otherhand possess supernatural psychotic powers to travel to different dimensions so I'm sure you know what he meant better than what he thought he meant.
bluesclues wrote:York wrote:The only argument you can win a mad man is the one to convince him that he is sane...
If the Holy Spirit makes ppl looney, no matter how much you desire to experience it, that ain't the spirit of God, it's psychosis!
really, so psychosis is the means by which i can vacate my body and visit heaven? cool. glad you believe in the teachings of the prophets york. u all really tink i stupid yes. to not know the difference. perhaps ur right. perhaps, a psychosis is involved with elevating to spiritual awareness. however, denial can spawn only out of 2 things, doubt, and envy. now u can battle with that as much as you like. i wont be aiming to prove anything to you. it is up to you to weigh what i teach and sdecide for urself. i say what i say. take it or leave it.
Slartibartfast wrote:Soooooooooo.... no counter argument Habit?
Habit7 wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:Soooooooooo.... no counter argument Habit?
No. My motive here is not to win arguments but to preach the gospel. That God is holy, you are a sinner, His judgement abides on you, you need to repent and put your trust in work of Jesus for the forgiveness of you sins. You like many others here don't disbelieve in God, you just reject Him. So winning or losing in any argument against me is not going to improve your situation. God resists the proud and embraces the humble.
Habit7 wrote:I read this article recently from an atheist, sobering thoughts from what appears in this thread to be the one of the most closed minded, uninformed and biased ideological group.Irrational Atheism
By Crispin Sartwell
OCT 11 2014, 12:28 PM ET
Religious beliefs are remarkably various. But sometimes it can seem that there is only one way to be an atheist: asserting, on the basis of reasoned argument, that belief in God is irrational. The aging "new atheists"—Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, for example—pit reason against faith, science against superstition, and declare for reason and science.
It pictures the universe as a natural system, a system not guided by intelligent design and not traversed by spirits; a universe that can be explained by science, because it consists of material objects operating according to physical laws. In this sense, atheism embodies a whole picture of the world, offering explanations about its most general organization to the character of individual events.
Ironically, this is similar to the totalizing worldview of religion—neither can be shown to be true or false by science, or indeed by any rational technique. Whether theistic or atheistic, they are all matters of faith, stances taken up by tiny creatures in an infinitely rich environment.
I'm an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system. I think of it, on the basis of my own extremely limited experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing. It isn't bent on saving me, or damning me: It just is. I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That's my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience. But it's not an argument; it's an interpretation.
I have taken a leap of atheist faith.
Religious people sometimes try to give proofs of the truth of their faith—Saint Thomas Aquinas famously gave five in his Summa Theologica. But for many people, belief comes before arguments, originating in family, social and institutional context, in desire and need. The arguments are post-hoc rationalizations. This can be true of atheism as well. For me, it's what I grew up with. It gets by in my social world, where professions of religious faith would be considered out of place. My non-faith is fundamentally part of how I connect with others and the world.
The idea that the atheist comes to her view of the world through rationality and argumentation, while the believer relies on arbitrary emotional commitments, is false. This accounts for the sense that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins are arrogant: Their line of thinking often takes the form of disqualifying others on the grounds that they are irrational. But the atheist too, is deciding to believe in conditions of irremediable uncertainty, not merely following out a proof.
Religious people have often offloaded the burden of their choices on institutions and relied on the Church's authorities and dogmas. But some atheists are equally willing to offload their beliefs on "reason" or "science" without acknowledging that they are making a bold intellectual commitment about the nature of the universe, and making it with utterly insufficient data. Religion at its best treats belief as a resolution in the face of doubt. I want an atheism that does the same, that displays epistemological courage.
Kierkegaard defined faith as "an objective uncertainty held fast in passionate inwardness.” He recommended Christianity not because it was well justified, and not in spite of the fact that it was insufficiently justified, but because it constituted a paradox: "The eternal God had appeared in time and died." That's not just difficult to explain, he said; it is entirely contradictory. By any reasonable measure it simply cannot be true. But that's why believing it called for total passion over the course of a lifetime. Christianity was the best thing to believe in part because it was the hardest thing to believe.
If a believer rejects rationality in this manner, you aren't likely to persuade him by showing him that his reasons are bad; he admits as much, or more. There's no use having an argument with a person who rejects argumentation.
William James—himself an eminent scientist—pointed out that science rests on emotional commitment. "Our belief in truth itself," wrote James, "that there is a truth, and that our minds and it are made for each other—what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire, in which our social system backs us up? We want to have a truth; we want to believe that our experiments and studies and discussions must put us in a continually better and better position towards it; and on this line we agree to fight out our thinking lives. But if a … sceptic asks us how we know all this, can our logic find a reply? No! certainly it cannot. It is just one volition against another—we willing to go in for life upon a trust or assumption which he, for his part, does not care to make."
It is possible, I think, to find a material world as inspiring as a spiritual world. Here is Henry Thoreau: "What is it to be admitted to a museum, to see a myriad of particular things, compared with being shown some star’s surface, some hard matter in its home! I stand in awe of my body, this matter to which I am bound has become so strange to me … Think of our life in nature—daily to be shown matter, to come in contact with it—rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks! the solid earth! the actual world! Contact! Contact! Who are we? where are we?" Many people, from Lucretius and Spinoza to Darwin and Muir, have expressed this sense of wonder or ravishment at material nature and their own embeddedness within it.
Genuinely bad things have happened to me in my life: One of my brothers was murdered; another committed suicide. I've experienced addiction and mental illness. And I, like you, have watched horrors unfold all over the globe. I don't—I can't—believe this to be best of all possible worlds. I think there is genuinely unredeemed, pointless pain. Some of it is mine.
By not believing in God, I keep faith with the world's indifference. I love its beauty. I hate its suffering. I think both are perfectly real, because I experience them both, all the time. I do not see any reason to suspend judgment: I'm here, and I commit. I'm perfectly sincere and definite in my belief that there is no God. I can see that there could be comfort in believing otherwise, believing that all the suffering and death makes sense, that everyone gets what they deserve, and that existence works out in the end.
But to believe that would be to betray my actual experiences, and even without the aid of reasoned arguments, that’s reason enough not to believe.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... sm/381353/
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests
