|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What led you to God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The purpose of carving an elephant is to express an elephant, no matter what else you might want to do with it.
Hey, I've said what I think. We will just go on disagreeing. Truce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
NO! I am the maker of that elephant statue, and being its maker (by your very own logic) I have the RIGHT to give to it what Purpose I please!
This own post of yours goes AGAINST everything else you have been trying to say to me. As for the truce: I see no need. A truce is only needed when one side has not already claimed vicotory. Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
don't believe there is a Christian god for many reasons (I sure I and others can come up with more)--idea is self-contradictory I disagree. This is a problem for the bible, not Jesus Christ. But nevertheless, contradiction doesn't automatically = false. There could be any number of explanations. One is that by trying to define and understand this concept, you infact guarantee a contradictive conclusion.
religion is just an easy way to control people or provide a sense of belonging/community That is perfectly true. But logically, it doesn't allow us to say Christ is made up.
the stories in the Bible are just made up and/or co-opted from other stories, there is no evidence for a god Why is this such a problem? It's not like we don't know that humans exaggerate. Also, there is no evidence for there being no God. The fact is, that by definition, we would be foolish to seek evidence for God, like he is a theory. Also, Joe the atheist must qualify what would evidence God. So far, every atheist has told me something different, and to make the matter worse, theists and agnosts also make different qualifiers. So think! What does this mean? .................Have you thought? It means that which would evidence God is infact not acsertainable. For all you know, the very universe itself, in reality, fully evidences God, in all it's orderly glory.
, and that there are always better naturalistic explanations for whatever phenomena is attributed to the supernatural. As Shraff said, it's a fallacy to fill gaps with God, and therefore those who do are not in the correct position. This however, only means God is parsimonious to the subject matter, no more. Example. You don't need God to get thunder (as somewhat proven). Therefore, that's all you can conclude. It would be silly to say that God therefore doesn't exist. That would be like saying that Hitchy doesn't exist because I don't need him to wash my socks. For all you know, if God holds the universe together, then everything requires God, in order to happen. So infact, indirectly, God is not truly a parsimonious addage, if this is the case. Disbelief is infact a choice. At one stage, you can accept your water, or you can consciously turn it back to wine, like I did, in the knowledge that your belief doesn't need evidence, if it is a strong one. Deep down, we know it's tough to believe, so we look for reasons to doubt in order to find a way out. The world thins us for sure, and nobody can deny my wisdom, because they know it is irrefutable; It's infact the burden of the world we carry around. And if we don't, then why were you carrying God? You wouldn't have needed him! If it was God you were carrying, then you would have had earthly troubles, as you would need God. But anyone with a full belly and riches, doesn't seek God. He infact relies on those riches he has, and casts away any other hopes. Truly it is the world you carried. And if it wasn't, then how could you carry God? You wouldn't need him! You would have dropped extra baggage immediately! Maybe God was extra baggage in your life. Any believer strong in Christ, carries the world, and gets tired with God, but doesn't drop God. He infact hangs on to God like a tick on a boar. It is afterall, our hope, that the reward of our faith is eternal life, after going through this world. If he carries God, then he drops God, for he has no worldy trouble. And he has dropped the only true treasure he ever had. The world is an appaulingly immoral and money obsessed, lust obsessed, decadence obsessed, killer of men, that would sell you on ebay. (edited rant)> This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-19-2006 11:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Mike, you are back! Dang you have long explanations!! Here is my two cents worth:
1) About the Bible: Some say it is innerrent and others say it is full of errors and contradictions. My opinion is that there is a definite character BEHIND the book, and the character of God speaks true to the heart....but He reaches us---we never "find" Him through intellectual verification! 2) About God: To some of you, He is unnecessary. Perhaps, but if you can read my replies and listen to me--a human whom you really dont know---why not extend to Him the same invitation? You may never get an answer for ten years, but it does not mean that you conclude that nobody is knockin at your soul!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Trek writes: Are we taking sides? I now am Faiths lawyer! All future correspondance must be filtered through me!
I am the maker of that elephant statue, and being its maker (by your very own logic) I have the RIGHT to give to it what Purpose I please!You GO! You Creator, you!
This own post of yours goes AGAINST everything else you have been trying to say to me. As for the truce: I see no need. A truce is only needed when one side has not already claimed victory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I have long explanations because I was never gone and so when I do type it's one hell of a rant. I've read this whole topic for days, as a fence sitting lurker.
I only replied to Hitchy because I relate to his testimony and could have became a none believer very easily. I think on the whole, Shraff has the correct position in this topic as Prophex seems to only applaude religiosity, while ignoring genuine credence and validity, which types replies to him in the form of Shraff. I basically agree with your post, but former explanations are also honest and genuine. Early on, Shraff said that it was not here desire to disbelieve, which is, for reasons of intellect, a very important point in this thread. This means that to me, she is in the correct position, because she is not obliged to give up thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Are you serious? You've said nothing at all. Most of your rant doesn't have any meaning; nonsensical in many places, redundant in others. If we prove that there is a better explanation than God, we can conclude a variety of different things: 1) God doesn't exist2) God does exist, but is unnecessary L__a) God is not worh worshipping L__b) God's power is not proven L__c) God's presence cannot be shown ---L__i) God's power cannot be shown ---L__ii) The default position of disbilief must be taken The very fact that you point out how wealthier people are less likely to believe in God, is evidence of the controlling nature of religion. I mean, a belief in God works very well in keeping the poor masses from rising against the rich. Oh, and contradiction DOES = false. The statement: (x=y and x=/y) is a false statement, because it can NEVER be true. (=/ means "does not equal"). Trék This message has been edited by Invictus, 01/19/2006 11:21 AM In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I would hope that no one would take sides. We should agree with what someone says, not with the person themselves.
And why does Faith need a lawyer? Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
To acknowledge someone knocking on my soul, I would have to first conclude that I had one.
Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Trek writes: Now as for the purpose of the automobile in question. Just because the maker makes it with his own purpose in mind, does not mean that that is its purpose. No one, not even the maker, can decide what objective purpose an object has, because purpose is ALL subjective.Suppose I carve a statue of an elephant for my own purpose of using it to decorate my yard. Someone else, seeing the statue, realizes that it works very well in scaring away the local neighborhood hoolagans from stealing apples off his tree. In an effort to protect his tree, he carves a statue identical to mine and places it in his back yard. What is the purpose of his statue? What is the purpose of mine, as it too scares away local neighborhood hoolagans? OK...Hmmmm... A nail can be hammered with a wrench or a screwdriver as well as with a hammer, eh? The inventor of the hammer saw a need that was not entirely his own imagination----it was a practical consensus among many---otherwise, he would have not sold many hammers. People could have bought wrenches, used rocks, or even tried to use the automobile to pound nails into boards. The purpose of the hammer, seen with the eyes of the user, is subjective in that the use arises within their own logic internally. The purpose of the hammer, in a practical sense, was objective as the idea came from the maker of the hammer initially. All belief may well be subjective as the need for such and/or awareness of such springs forth internally.The Creator, on the other hand, may well be an objective reality outside of our minds regardless of whether or not we have a subjective need or awareness of such a Being. Were one to ask God why He exists, the answer may well be I AM that I AM. For some reason, the Creator created us (through evolution, hocus pocus, or however He did it) with a built-in awareness that had the ability to see life without Him. Man discovered fire...(it was already a reality) yet we later invented matches. In the same context, humans may well discover God (or Not) yet we will never invent Him since by definition He preceeded us. In the context of the O.P. What led me to God, I would have to definitely say that I discovered God one day yet in reality He was there all along! This message has been edited by Phat, 01-19-2006 12:17 PM For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: I was trying to put a bulletin board in my bedroom once. My younger brother walked in and saw I was hammering in the nails with the back of a wrench. He shook his head and mummbled something about me being an idiot. Nevertheless, I hammered those nails in with the back of that wrench and the bulletin board hangs still today. The reason for the creation of the hammer was to fullfill the subjective purpose of its maker. That purpose being to hammer nails into some material. Other people may very well find their own purpose for the hammer. The hammer itself cannot have its own purpose, therefore any purpose given to it, is given to it in a subjective way. Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Purpose is not inherent. Formal purpose is inherent--and objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So lets take the wrench then. Suppose Mr. Martian were to land on Earth today. He sees a wrench lying on the ground and picks it up. He is not sure what it does, but plays with it for a while; he tests it on different objects. First he tries to turn in a screw on his space craft. It doesn't work very well, in fact, he accomplishes nothing. He then decides to hammer in some loose nails on his craft. Compared to the tools he uses, the wrench works considerably well, and he can hammer the nails in half the time. He then notices a few loose bolts. He tries to turn them in with the wrench, but it cannot fit on the bolts. He tries on some different sized bolts, no luck. Eventually, however, he finds a bolt that the wrench fits perfectly. He turns it in with little effort. He is not overly impressed by this, however, his home planet of Mars has plenty of wrenches, but no such thing as a hammer. He concludes that the objective purpose (the formal purpose), (the inherent purpose), is to hammer nails, while the purpose of being able to turn in bolts is only an added feature.
Is the Martian right? Is he wrong? Can right/wrong be determined in such a scenario? The answer to all three of those questions is "no." The Martian cannot be right, nor can he be wrong, because right and wrong cannot be determined. The only mistake made by the Martian was to assume an objective purpose existed for the wrench. Clearly, one does not. I am not going to argue, however, that turning in a bolt is not a better purpose to find for the wrench than hammering, but my decision here is too subjective. For the Martian found hammering to be the best purpose for the wrench. Best, better, worse, worst... all are subjective as well, but lets not go there here. Trék In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Is the Martian right? Is he wrong? Can right/wrong be determined in such a scenario?
The Martian has got nothing to do with the formal purpose. The maker of the device determines the purpose. The formal purpose of a wrench is to turn bolts. The formal purpose of a hammer is to hammer nails. It doesn't matter whether a Martian or anyone can figure out what the formal purpose is. But if a made item has a formal purpose, most likely it can be determined by an outsider. But if it can't the formal purpose remains exactly the same. A Martian might decide that the formal purpose of a human being is to do arithmetic. That's plausible, since humans are good at doing arithmetic. But it's wrong if the maker of the human being is nature. If God made man, then he can possibly have a formal purpose. He cannot possibly have a formal purpose if he was made by mindless accident.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Are you serious? You've said nothing at all. Most of your rant doesn't have any meaning; nonsensical in many places, redundant in others. You didn't show this because you didn't address my points. Therefore this is an unsupported vacuous assertion which you now need to back up. At the moment I'm more confident that it challenged you, and I feel this is why you didn't address anything I said.
Oh, and contradiction DOES = false. The statement: (x=y and x=/y) is a false statement, because it can NEVER be true. (=/ means "does not equal"). Infact it can. And there you were thinking you were smart. If an apple is red and green, the statement "Y is B and not B", can be true, if B represents green. Because in places, the apple is green and in other places it is not. What I referred to was a false dichotomy. A contradiction which is infact not really a contradiction. I am shocked that you didn't realise that. Positing that God is contradictive, is a claim in itself, and there is easily the possibility of a false contradiction being inferred. Example of how easy this is in argumentation; The assertion; the apple is red and not red, as a statement, posits a contradiction. Similarly, one might say " God must be so and so, and not so and so". This is a false contradiction because the composition of the colour of the apple involves 3% of it's colour having green spots. Therefore, it is not truly a contradiction afterall. It is a false one. Creating a contradictive definition of God is hypothetical and vacuous because it doesn't prove a thing. Infact, God is not a theory that can be understood. Saying God is all-loving is a favourite assertion amongst none-believers, which GUARANTEES a contradiction in the definition of God, but is not a scriptural assertion by believers. So any contradiction would depend on the false premise, which would mean that any contradiction would be a false one, logically. edit forgot to test my sign. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-19-2006 05:41 PM There's so many different worlds, so many different suns...and we have just the one, but we live in different worlds
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024