Choosing a faith

quote:

---

Why would I have to avoid an infinite regress? It’s a basic issue. The book says "in the beginning God..." so logically the first cause is/was either defined as God or the guy who first wrote it. Either way, it is not an infinite regress beyond and before that point

---

GDR is using arguments that imply an infinite regress. If you are trying to defend that on the ground that you aren’t GDR then you are just being silly.

quote:

---

Try basic common sense. The first (and only) guy who wrote those words was himself the initial writer. His writing was a definite origin. IF the God He described in his writing exists, then that God is an original thought either of Him/Her/Itself or by virtue of the writers intent. And to further clarify, what I mean when I say that God is/was an original thought either of Him/Her/Itself or by virtue of the writers intent, I simply mean I AM that I AM.

---

Try using some actual sense Phat. You can’t patch up a hole in an argument without addressing the problem.

Your logic-based argument was that intelligence requires an intelligence to create it.Our response to that argument is that in that case the creator intelligence requires a greater intelligence to create IT.Your response then introduced an uncaused cause which breaks your initial premise. Intelligence therefore does not require a greater intelligence to create it.By invoking an uncaused cause, you simply said “I believe” again. No you didn't, you came up with a pile of pseudo-science that you don't understand as an alibi for a pure belief.If you want the science-based answer to the origin of intelligence it's evolution. We have overwhelming evidence that people and their intelligence evolved naturally.​

Because if the first premise of your argument is “intelligence requires a greater intelligence to create it “ you must follow the logic which leads to an infinite series of increasingly intelligent creators.If you say that your god is uncaused, you break your first premise and the argument collapses. What 'the book says' is irrelevant. This is a simple logic argument. You can't invoke an uncaused cause and leave your first premise intact.It's a matter of belief that your particular god doesn't need a cause.If you guys could just leave it at that, we'd have nothing to say, but you have to use broken philosophy and bad science.

I'm trying to add clarity to the biased view inherent in almost everything you say. Like this: Agreed. In the same way:Science leaves open the possibility of Santa Claus - although it's current conclusion is that Santa Claus does not exist.
Science leaves open the possibility of Luminiferous Aether - although it's current conclusion is that Luminiferous Aether does not exist.
Science leaves open the possibility of Eric the God-Eating Magic Penguin - although it's current conclusion is that Eric the God-Eating Magic Penguin does not exist.
Science leaves open the possibility of an intelligent designer - although it's current conclusion is that an intelligent designer does not exist.Science leaves open the possibility of everything and anything imaginable at all - although it's current conclusion is that after looking for evidence: anything without evidence or anything not linked to reality in any way does not exist. And that's illogical.
The so-called best method has the only known positive track record for being correct about things it doesn't have answers to... as shown by what we know after the answers are discovered.
And you don't want to use it for such things? This is exactly why it should be used for such things - if you hold "finding the truth" as your highest priority.
Every other method known to humanity has a negative track record for such things. Like "makes sense to me" or "feels right" or "seems like it should be." All of those have negative track records when answers are currently unknown and then we learn and they become known. This is easily shown to be false. Since there's no existence of a deity, after we've excruciatingly looked for thousands of years... it's quite clear that this is in it's purview, and the conclusion is that a deity does not exist. Show this.
Because it doesn't seem to be true.What seems to be true is that there are things we know, and things we don't know. And then we learn about the things we don't know. And this causes the "things we know" column to keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
There have been many, many, many things people have claimed are "unknowable" but are now known:

• Crossing the ocean to find North and South America
• Circumference of the Earth
• What the Earth itself is made of (core, what's in the middle...)
• Age of the Earth
• Age of the Universe
• Going to the moon
• Quantum computers
• How life came to be
• How society evolved
• How morality evolved
• Black holes
• Where my missing sock went

If you really think some things are unknowable, then answer this question: What is the difference between something that is unknowable and something that is only currently unknown?Hint: To answer that - you'll have to know everything.If human history is any indication - we have an amazing ability of making "things we think are unknown" into "known things." We seem to do it all the time.
I don't see how anyone could see this amazing ability of ours and then think: "well, obviously there are things that are unknowable..." How can you possibly tell?And that's absolutely fine - for you.
Just as my ideas are absolutely fine - for me.And I get to say that finding the truth is my highest priority.
You can only say that finding the truth is extremely important to you, but not the most important - especially when the truth goes against what "makes sense" to you.And I know that you can clearly see how that's true when you read it.
And yet - it doesn't "make sense" to you at the same time - does it? It makes much more sense if you do hold the truth to be your highest priority as well - doesn't it?
Which is exactly the problem with leaning on things that "make sense" to you - our human brains are able to create the feeling of "making sense" for wholly contradictory positions that cannot possibly co-exist with each other. It takes effort and the willingness to deal with uncomfortable feelings of "this doesn't make sense at all..." in order to really get to the actual truth. That's why it took so many thousands of years for us to develop Science in the first place! Because Science, in and of itself, doesn't "make sense" to anyone at all!! Why do you think it's always been called blasphemous? But, the thing is - regardless of how much sense it makes - it is true. And, by using it, we can show that it's true.You can ignore it if it "makes sense" to you - but it won't go away. And you'll forever be limiting yourself from actually identifying what is, really, true.

Laudable for you, while many of the religious ignore the golden rule when it comes to LGBTQ+.Those religions are traitors to their country as the preach against the laws of the land.Regards
DL

"but I don't know the mind of God other that\n what we can see in Jesus."Jesus and his Armageddon.Do you see Jesus doing all that mass murder or curing the ill when he returns?Do you see that Jesus as good or evil?Regards
DL

It makes sense, given that our first "I am" moment in our dualistic reality, we would apply I am to both our physical and spiritual side.95% of us think in a material dualism way, body souls, or body spirit or life force thinking.Did you name your spiritual side anything?Regards
DL

GDR writes:
​
I believe God to be eternal"I believe Yahweh is a vile prick and I can argue a good case.If eternal, your God deserves to be destroyed ASAP.He is a menace to all moral people.Regards
DL

I can't remember where I read it but it was in a book on science that hoped to help the great unwashed like myself. The writer claimed that our universe is "an emergent property of a greater reality".I see God as being in that greater reality, and I simply see within that in that greater reality is the possibility of there being multiple dimensions of time without entropy. I suppose I agree with that. It is getting well into an area that is faith and belief. However it does give us one way to consider an non-entropic eternal world. Sure it was spread as Dawkins might say by natural memes. However that doesn't tell us wheteher ro not there is a God meme involved as well.

We do not know how the universe came about. Speculating about “greater realities” is as pointless as making up gods to explain what we don't understand yet.
​
If you want to hear real science about how a universe may come into existence from nothing, try listening to Lawrence Krauss.https://www.youtube.com/live/F87DyAsYQoI?feature=share Yeh, well that's just waffle. You have a belief in the Christian god of a 2,000 year old book, it's got nothing to do with entropy and multiple dimensions. What was? Evolution? Evolution isn't a meme it's a scientific discovery. A fact. It tells us that a god was simply not necessary to create the diversity of life we see on our planet - including intelligent life. We have zero evidence for an interventionist god and zero need for one to explain intelligent life.You have a belief you acquired from your culture, why are you trying to justify it with science that you don't understand and doesn't support what you actually believe? There is no science that supports a risen Christ and never will be.

Ok, fair enough but we can form opinions about any of those examples based on what we do know. I do know that we have life including sentient beings that have a sense of right and wrong and can feel empathy. I know that we live in a very complex world and I have come to the conclusion that all of that is far more likely to emerge from a pre-existing intelligence than from mindless dirt.As for all of your other examples I have come to the conclusion that they are inconsistent with the world as I perceive it so I have rejected them. We can observe the thoughts effect on the brain and in our actions but we can't actually observe an actual thought. In addition we can only make a best guess as to what caused an individual to form that thought. However, thoughts are real. I've looked and found God in a parent lovingly hugging their child, in an individual selfless act of charity, in an individual risking or even giving their life to save others etc. I realize that you you and others see that as being the result of evolutionary forces but this is just something we can only agree to disagree on. I'm not claiming to know that we are the result of a pre-existing intelligence or not. I simply say that theistic, and in my case Christian belief, makes is far more consistent with the world I experience than atheism. Again, we simply disagree. OK, so you believe that the scientific method is the only way to answer questions. Again, I disagree. You don't accept it, but finding truth is at least as important to me as it is to you. My Christian belief hugely impacts how I live my life whereas I don't see atheism impacting people's thinking and by extension their lives. Atheists form their world views on other grounds which is fine.

The whole Armageddon thing is a anachronistic misunderstanding of the Bible. Jesus preached a message rejecting a violent revolution that would drive the Romans out. He preached a message of non-violent revolution. The destruction was about what would happen to Jerusalem and the Temple if a violent revolution would occur. I'm not saying that He knew this supernaturally but it was pretty clear that the Jewish nation was going that route, and Jesus was simply saying that the Romans would respond as they always did, which wasn't a unreasonable conclusion, even though an unpopular one.His message was essentially that the problem wasn't the Romans but the evil behind the Romans and the weapon that we have against evil id love. (Love your enemy, turn the other cheek etc.)I see Jesus as the ultimate good.Incidentally I am inclined to believe that Jesus returns to us individually as we shuffle off this mortal coil.

Your video is an hour and a half. Maybe you could summarize it.Actually, I am agnostic about the formation of the universe. From my Christian POV what interests me is the formation of life. Whether or not God created life in an pre-exiting world or not doesn't really impact my Christian beliefs. Well there is that collection of 66 books but there is also a life of observation and experience. The Bible uses the metaphor of using a cloud as representing the presence of God. It is really only in the last few years that science has explored the possibilities of other dimensions that we don't directly perceive and so I simply see the idea of another dimension in place of a cloud. Sure, physical evolution is. Finches beaks are changed in order to adapt, and there is a physical record of this. Evolution does not tell us how particular lines of thought came about, but only that they did. Everything else is pure conjecture. I'm agnostic as the whether God intervened in the process of physical evolution. I'm fine with the idea that it was all in place at the outset. I agree that science never will support the idea of the resurrection of Jesus. I have come to the conclusion that a resurrected Jesus is the best answer as to why the early Christian church evolved the way it did. Of course, without my basic theistic conclusions then the resurrection makes no sense.

quote:

---

The whole Armageddon thing is a anachronistic misunderstanding of the Bible

---

It really isn’t. You need to read The Revelation.

quote:

---

Jesus preached a message rejecting a violent revolution that would drive the Romans out. He preached a message of non-violent revolution

---

Because preaching that a violent revolution would lead to God intervening to save the Jews and destroy Rome supports “non-violent revolution”? That’s what you have him say.
(And talking of that are we ever going to see you providing any evidence that Jesus meant that the Romans specifically would destroy the Temple. You claimed to have it, but never came up with any - looks like another of your inventions).Not to mention that there is evidence suggesting that the historical Jesus may have supported violent revolution.

Yes, actual science is hard, it requires a lot of work and a lot of understanding. The summary is the the universe was self-creating and inevitable. Nothing influences your Christian beliefs does it? You feel that you have a personal communion with Christ. How could any actual facts disturb that? You find excuses to wave away all evidence counting against that belief. I don't understand why you bother with these discussions, nothing we can say can penetrate your delusion.Your belief is now so watered down from the original story that there's nothing left but a belief in the resurrection of Christ. You deny pretty much all traditional Christian beliefs and now you tell us that you don't even require your god to have created the universe. It's your very own personal religion.