Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 61 of 271 (567864)
07-02-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
07-02-2010 4:57 PM


Re: Detection of God
Hi jar,
jar writes:
However there is evidence that there was some beginning to this Universe. We can determine that this Universe does exist.
Yes the universe had a beginning.
Yes the universe exists.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That says God caused the universe to begin to exist.
So what do you say caused the universe to begin to exist?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 07-02-2010 4:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 07-02-2010 9:11 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2010 10:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 62 of 271 (567865)
07-02-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
07-02-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Detection of God
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
What do you call this then?
Instruction to a special person that was to go to the gentiles.
Ananias needed special instructions or he never would have let anyone accept Saul into their fellowship.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2010 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2010 10:22 PM ICANT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 271 (567867)
07-02-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
07-02-2010 8:47 PM


Re: Detection of God
That says God caused the universe to begin to exist.
So what do you say caused the universe to begin to exist?
God Bless,
That God said nothing.
Who ever wrote and much later whoever redacted the Genesis 1 myth said that.
Even if true, it tells us nothing worthwhile or of value. It has no more meaning, no more information than...
In the beginning there were only two: Tawa, the Sun God, and Spider Woman, the Earth Goddess. All the mysteries and power in the Above belonged to Tawa, while Spider Woman controlled the magic of the Below. In the Underworld, abode of the Gods, they dwelt and they were All. There was neither man nor woman, bird nor beast, no living thing until these Two willed it to be.
Did anything cause the universe to begin to exist?
If the answer is "We don't know yet" then the proper response is to place that question into the "Not yet known" folder, not to simply jump to some answer, particularly an answer that leaves us as ignorant as before.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." tells us nothing of value. The steps we are taking now do tell us far more.
Also, as I said in the very post you are quoting; in fact in the very next sentence...
"jar" writes:
There is no evidence however that God exists.
"ICANT" writes:
God Bless,
Which God?
Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2010 8:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 1:29 AM jar has replied
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 2:05 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 271 (567869)
07-02-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ICANT
07-02-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Detection of God
Instruction to a special person that was to go to the gentiles.
You deny that a miraculous light from heaven, Jesus talking to one personally, and a cure for blindness constitute some kind of sign from heaven.
Well, have it your way. So, killinghurts can't get a sign, but he can get a non-sign like that, right? A miraculous event so convincing as to turn his opinions of Christianity around 180 degrees, but which for some reason you won't call a "sign"?
Incidentally, if what happened to Saul wasn't a sign from heaven, then what would one look like? Would there also be a brass band and a parade of elephants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2010 9:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 07-03-2010 3:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 271 (567870)
07-02-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
07-02-2010 8:47 PM


Re: Detection of God
ICANT writes:
So what do you say caused the universe to begin to exist?
Someone else of the same name writes:
I chuckle everytime I think about all the times I pushed for an answer as to where the universe that existed at T=10-43 came from.
The correct answer is "We don't know".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 07-02-2010 8:47 PM ICANT has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 66 of 271 (567878)
07-02-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Huntard
07-02-2010 2:26 PM


Re: Futile Materialism
Huntard,
Ok, here I am. Now what?
Did you read the following arguments, which were more specific?...Taken out of context, you can make anything mean, ultimately, anything you want.
Let me get this straight. Because an ancient text says there is a spirit, you say there must be a spirit.
Correct. I am a Christian, and if I - claiming to be a Christian - were to stand on something other than the word of God, then I would be grossly inconsistent. So if I wish to be inconsistent with my beliefs, then I would stand on something other than the Bible. But I care about what God wants me to do infinitely more than what you want me to do, so I'll take my stand on the Bible, despite what you say. Besides, your an atheist; you are opposed to my God, so should I listen to Him who I believe to be at the very core of the universe, or him (you) who is opposed to my God?..."All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Tim. 3:16-17).
Because there is also a body attached to that brain.
You're on the right track. But remember that I said the statement itself is self-contradictory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 2:26 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 5:08 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 92 by Taq, posted 07-06-2010 11:56 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 67 of 271 (567882)
07-03-2010 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Woodsy
07-02-2010 2:56 PM


Re: Science over God?
Woodsy,
The error is that there is no way to verify the accuracy of religious so-called explanations. Remember, the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Have you ever heard of "the impossibility of the opposite"? Visit the Underlying Philosophy thread to see more details on this argument.
Also, a laboratory could not exist were it not for the metaphysicist. This is because for any epistemological beliefs to be put in place (as in science), metaphysical beliefs must be put in place first. As an example, if a scientist wishes to determine what the nature of a ladybug is, and he thus determines the best way he should go about doing that (epistemology), he must first have a number of metaphysical beliefs in place, e.g., he can determine the nature of a ladybug, and other such things.
So having established where epistemological reality stems from (it stems from metaphysical reality), the question remains; from where does metaphysical reality stem from? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1); "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." (Exodus 20:11); "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Woodsy, posted 07-02-2010 2:56 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2010 12:36 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 82 by Woodsy, posted 07-03-2010 2:47 PM sac51495 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 271 (567884)
07-03-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by sac51495
07-03-2010 12:19 AM


Re: Science over God?
Have you ever heard of "the impossibility of the opposite"? Visit the Underlying Philosophy thread to see more details on this argument.
If he does so, he will see this phrase often repeated, but with no details and no argument.
Also, a laboratory could not exist were it not for the metaphysicist.
I think you will find that it is quite possible to build a laboratory without consulting a "metaphysicist" at all.
That is one reason why they aren't in any great demand, and don't get paid the big bucks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:19 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 69 of 271 (567885)
07-03-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
07-02-2010 3:16 PM


Re: Science over God?
jar,
Is there some reason that God should not be an evil, capricious, unmerciful, hating being?
"But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things." (Romans 2:2); "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39) "The eternal God is your refuge,And underneath are the everlasting arms; He will thrust out the enemy from before you, And will say, ‘Destroy!’" (Deut. 33:27)..etc., etc.
Is the God you create any more likely than any other God?
Are you arguing against the Muslim god? Are you arguing against the Hindu "god"? Are you arguing against the Buddhist god? Are you arguing against the mythological Greek gods? The Roman gods? The Norse gods? The Egyptian gods? Are you an atheist? What is the positive position held by some on this forum that you are arguing against? If you are arguing against the Christian faith as an atheist, then you get to argue against it, and other religions are irrelevant. If I followed your logic, then I could cite all the other inherently atheistic worldviews that are out there, many of which you probably do not subscribe to, such as Behaviorism, Existentialism, Platonic Dualism, Monism, Deterministic Atomism, Pragmatism, or Egoism.
And if that argument didn't satisfy you, then I'll give another one, which is one that I find to be most satisfying: "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; for in the very thing in which they behaved proudly, He was above them. (Exodus 18:11); "yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." (1 Cor. 8:6); "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3).
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-02-2010 3:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:22 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 70 of 271 (567887)
07-03-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taq
07-02-2010 3:45 PM


Re: Futile Materialism
Taq,
No, I am not [a materialist].
Then why exactly do I need to prove to you that there is an immaterial reality, if you already believe there to be one?
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 07-02-2010 3:45 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 07-06-2010 11:58 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 71 of 271 (567888)
07-03-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Theodoric
07-02-2010 4:33 PM


Re: Epitome of Hypocrisy
Theodoric,
One reason is that he doesn't worship the Big Bang. Or think that it provides some sort of moral lesson.
And your point is what? That because he doesn't worship the Big Bang, he doesn't have to provide evidence for it, even though he insists that I provide evidence for my claims? I repeat; the epitome of hypocrisy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2010 4:33 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2010 1:01 AM sac51495 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 271 (567889)
07-03-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by sac51495
07-03-2010 12:52 AM


Re: Epitome of Hypocrisy
And your point is what? That because he doesn't worship the Big Bang, he doesn't have to provide evidence for it, even though he insists that I provide evidence for my claims? I repeat; the epitome of hypocrisy.
The behavior and opinions of the people who live in your head may indeed be the "epitome of hypocrisy". This is one of the many ways in which they differ from real people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:52 AM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 1:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 73 of 271 (567890)
07-03-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
07-02-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Detection of God
jar,
That God said nothing.
Who ever wrote and much later whoever redacted the Genesis 1 myth said that.
Even if true, it tells us nothing worthwhile or of value. It has no more meaning, no more information than...
In the beginning there were only two: Tawa, the Sun God, and Spider Woman, the Earth Goddess. All the mysteries and power in the Above belonged to Tawa, while Spider Woman controlled the magic of the Below. In the Underworld, abode of the Gods, they dwelt and they were All. There was neither man nor woman, bird nor beast, no living thing until these Two willed it to be.
Did anything cause the universe to begin to exist?
If the answer is "We don't know yet" then the proper response is to place that question into the "Not yet known" folder, not to simply jump to some answer, particularly an answer that leaves us as ignorant as before.
Firstly, if you believe your anecdote about Tawa and Spider woman to be as equally foolish as Genesis, then why are you arguing against the Christians, as if their beliefs had some meaning to them? Why don't you argue against the believers in Tawa and Spider woman?
Secondly, why shouldn't the Bible be believed? The earliest manuscript we have of Julius Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars is from around 900 A.D. - about 1000 years after the Gallic Wars were fought. Also, Plato's famous work "(the) Republic" was written around 400 B.C., and the earliest manuscript we have is dated 900 A.D. - over 1200 years after the fact.
But what about the Bible? The Dead Sea Scrolls were composed sometime from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D., and the oldest copy we have of them is from...150 B.C. to 70 A.D. So why shouldn't we trust the accounts of Jesus given by New Testament writers? Do we ever doubt Julius Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars? Or do we doubt whether or not Plato really wrote The Republic? So if we have 4 accounts of Jesus by 4 different writers, why should the accounts be doubted, particularly in their historical sense? But their history is all based on the Genesis account, so why shouldn't we trust the Genesis account?
But, most importantly: "As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:9) This vs. establishes the infallibility of the Gospel story, which itself refers back to the Genesis account of our earliest history (about 6000 years ago) as though it were also inerrant.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 07-02-2010 9:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 9:40 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 74 of 271 (567891)
07-03-2010 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2010 1:01 AM


Re: Epitome of Hypocrisy
Dr. Adequate,
The behavior and opinions of the people who live in your head may indeed be the "epitome of hypocrisy". This is one of the many ways in which they differ from real people.
Hummm....shall we refer back to the quote which I was responding to?
Theodoric writes:
One reason is that he doesn't worship the Big Bang. Or think that it provides some sort of moral lesson.
He said this in response to my comment which said:
sac51495 writes:
if Woodsy can say that he does not have to understand everything about how the Big Bang worked, then why should I have to explain perfectly the nature of God, if he can't even explain the nature of the Big Bang?
Which Woodsy said here, in message 27:
Woodsy writes:
since the fact that something is not understood just now is not evidence that it will never be understood.
And he was referring to the fact that he doesn't know everything about the origin of our universe, which he believes to have expanded during the Big Bang.
So it appeared as though Theodoric was saying that because I worship God, I have to describe perfectly his nature, but since Woodsy doesn't worship the Big Bang, he doesn't have to perfectly describe its nature.

I hope this resolved your objection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2010 1:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2010 3:10 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 271 (567895)
07-03-2010 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by sac51495
07-03-2010 1:41 AM


Re: Epitome of Hypocrisy
There is a difference in meaning between the phrases: "provide evidence for it" and "understand everthing about how [it] worked". I hope this clarifies matters for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 1:41 AM sac51495 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024