GOD IS DEAD

'Two apes walking' (Agobot) writes: Thanks for the consisderation in this matter from the theists point of view. It would ofcourse change the overall outlook on life and what to expect later. My immediate response would be one of sickening horror inside, knowing that I would really not see any of the people I had come to know and love, like, Paulk, Percy, Rahvin, Brian, Autumnman and many others, ha ha, ofcourse I am joking there.The immediate response would be to curl up and just be sick. I think after that I would persue any means and measure to prolong my pathetic life, not that I dont now but my urgency would be greater.I then would start to rationalize within myself that well, heck atleast I got to experience life in the first place, so let make the best of it.Intelligence and pseudo-morality, societal standards would also come into play as to how I lived and acted.Pursuit of the Upwardly mobile status in life would probably be next, trying to advance as far and much as I could to leave a lasting impression and those sorts of things would be next.Honestly I dont know how any of you live a life or in a state of mind where God and the after life are not a reality. I see no way to reduce my beliefs in such things to a product of my imagination or upbrining.Its really hard to say in any real detail how or what you would consider in this matter, because it is not even a remote possibilty from our point of view. But thanks for asking.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writesDo you mind me asking what it is that you did believe, theism, deism, etc? How does this happen? What would you say were the major points of this process What aspects of "self-examination" would one need to examine to come to a point of disbelief? What would you say to a position that states, "19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.Romans 1."Now I know you dont agree with these verses, but thought I might get your perspective on them.Ive said all of the above to simply say, it has always interested me how a person gets to your position and understanding about such matters,Thanks again.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Stile writes: This is a pretty good analogy given the present visual understanding and observation of things as they exist. God has made it clear that the sun shines on the just and the unjust and the rain to fall on both as well. The conditions of things as God has them set up would make it appear (at first glance),as all things are equal for us as human beings, if only observing our present conditions and surroundings, when in fact and reality, this present condition should not be the only consideration in the matter. This is why the other evidence, such as his obvious existence and his amplified Word give us a clearer and better understanding of what the actual facts are and what our response should be.So to amplify your analogy, the floor on which you are standing with your ladder, needs to be supported by something as well, correct?Secondly, your analogy fails due to the fact that there is only one way to experience the reality we are in presently, that is simply being here and confined and being limited to the space we are in. We both, only have the "same" experience of existence, we are both hanging form the rafter or we are both on the floor. There is no way for you to experience existence any different than myself. So as both of us are confined to either the rafter or the floor, we have to view and express our opinions from one and only one of these places. In other words, you have no better place of observation or experience than I do.To ignore other evidence to the contrary, would be like me insiting that the present freedom I enjoy, is due to random chance and my own accomplishments and refusing to acknowledge the obvious sacrifices by so many that brought that freedom about. But then we are free to believe whatever we want for what ever reason, correct? If your are only interested in a casual observation of things, Yes.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes;My purpose here was not to address the question of homosexuality but simply to quote the verses in thier entirity and in context.Rahvin thanks for your most recent reply to my quesions, ofcourse you were not required to answer any of those questions but I thank you, it was was exacally what I had asked and what I was looking for in a response to those questions. If you are not correct (in my mind)your are always thourough, this is one thing that characterizes your posts, very good job.As I read your post it reminded me of Dr. Wallace I Matsons last rejoinder in the Warren-Matson debate, where Dr. Matson, like Dr Flew had taken an awful beating from Dr Thomas B Warren, like anyone that had ever debated him had. In his last speech, Dr Matson said "I have been accused of so many violations,one more is not going to hurt", then he moved to a personal explanation of his life and beliefs, which sounded much like yours, thanks again for your very exhaustive response.Not that it matters to you but I will get to it as quickly as I can. I have work and other thing today and will work on it progressively.Thanks again,D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes:Please give me a list of the other "number of other possibilites", that do not fall into the category of the only two Logical possibilites?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes Absence of evidence and bear speculation hardly describes or catagorize the nature of evidence for the existence of God or the nature of the universe. Deciding whether it is an act of natural processes or a creative act is a choice based on (obvious) available evidence. One is certainly warrented in coming to the conclusion of a natural process "only", but he or she does so based on the available evidence at hand.Typically possible explanations are based on some evidence, the examples you offer generally do not fall in that category, since there is no way to demonstrate even the remotest possibilty of thier plausibility outside of the two possiblie explanations. The only two possible explanations provide us with the evidence we need to formulate this conclusions, the others do not. They are therefore only imaginations not even remote possibilites.In the same way, a person is justified as well, in the conclusion of an creative act by an eternal existent being, given the same obvious evidence. The "evidence" points to either or, initially. The same evidence that supports your contention of an eternal universe would support the existence of an eternal being, but this is where the process of evaluating evidence stops, in other words there are no other logical choices. At first observation this is what the evidence would allow. A closer inspection would indicate that the universe and its contents do not exhibit the characteristics of that which is classified as eternal in nature, a position and clear indication that Gods existence is a reality.Things are here, we are here, there are only two possibilites. The existence of things is evidence of only two reasonable (logical) conclusions Absence of evidence and speculation are therefore, nonsensical terms to be applied in this instance, quite the contray is the case. It is because of evidence we are able to come to a valid and reasonable conclusion/s, even if there are only two. Often times people will use words or terms, as you have in this instance that are so far from thier true application, it is obvious to see right off the bat.Therefore your above statement is nothing more than very carefully stated "double talk". It, in essence, very carefully and eloquently ignores agreat deal of evidence and the very specific fact that there are only two known and demonstratble possibilites of how things are here, or in existence. If there is an infinite number, as you imply, then you should be able to demonstrate atleast one that does not fall within the two categories. This you could not do even if you stayed on the website an eternity. The truth is that you can't list ANY OTHER possibilites and the above examples are simply delineations and or revisions of the only two possibilites, that it is eternal itself or a being that is eternal itself, created the known or universe or universes. I will be happy to entertain any other prospects you can offer when it is clear they are not revisions. When one ignores your very obvious attempt to ignore the obvious, it becomes much less difficult to "differenciate" between the choices and the probabilites become even greater for a designer or creator. "Any data"?Since there are only two possibilites it is not at all difficult to form a rational, reasonable and logical opinion about the origins of things. One is not unwarrented in coming to this very reasonable conclusion. It proceeds from a standpoint of logic (deductive reasoning,) therefore scientific in character, which excludes it from any form of theological or religious concepts, that are not implied until later. Initially however, it is a product of the same properties or deductions reached by a process that proceeds from a data gathering process, therefore scientific in nature This my friend, is not my CLAIM, it is plain common sense, and "my" basis for restricting it and them is due to the fact that it is axiomatic in character. Sorry, that is just the way "things" are, my philisophical friend, unless you can demonstrate otherwise and you should know this already.. I am so sure you cannot do this, I will be willing to stay here as long as you wish to demonstrate it otherwise. You do realize, that your objections to me ,"restricting the origins of the universe to two possibilites", is a weak attempt to avoid the force of its conclusion, correct? Your examples are not necessarily illogical, they are weak attempts that fall well within the only two possibilites. I expected better out of you my fine young philosopher.Agobot writes: For God to "damn" something he has to be real, you realize this , correct? Why didnt you say "eternal universe damn it", or "someother possibility damn it". You cant even speak without acknowledging his existence or invoking his name.I will give you fellas one thing, you never give up. Knock yourself out junior, step across any line you wish, this should be interesting, not to mention fun. Perhaps you could explain this completely idiotic statement.D. BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes:Angry much?Nothing that Agobot stated could not be duplicated in yours. When commenting about his swearing, I thought even your simple mind would see it was meant to be light hearted. Calm down son, we are all hear to learn and have alittle fun.Even you would admit his comment made no sense. Do really consider that which you put forward especially in the context of such matters as refutations, give me a break. You have the nerve to ask me: As usual It will take some time to respond to your usual verbose blathering nonsense, Ha ha, but rest assured I will. I am not sure what "stupic" is but I will look it up.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writesIn your excitment you are not listening or you are not paying attention, at bear minimum you are making no sense. Falsification of an eternal universe has to establish something else, it had to come from somewhere else. If we speculate that it is the Matrix, a dream or an alien, you only push the process further back. If it is any of these things my simple friend and the universe is not eternal in part or entirity, it would forcably demonstrate that there is only one other solution, the eternal existence of something or someone that brought the process into being. If you cant provide another VALID solution or LOGICAL possibility, just say as much.
Instead of continuously objecting to my proposition, and calling it a non-consequence, please provide another logical alternative to the consequence that matter is not eternal. The evidence of objectivity, commonsense, rationality, logic, axiomatic truth obesevation, experience, testing and any other term you could level to the proposition. I use the same methods that you are arriving at your CONCLUSIONS, or are yours different or better? If it is a non-consequence and you dont like it, please provide the other possibilty that would demonstrate the consequences, if matter is not eternal. I cant believe you cant fathom this simple point. Something has to be eternal somewhere and at some point (no pun intended, "at some point"), the process was started. If it is you contention that the universe, Aliens, the Matrix, a dream or some other process started all of this, it gets you no closer to avoiding the obvious conclusions. Its not simply a non-consequence, its the only other possibility. If it is not and you cant give an example of something else, then state logically or from a logical standpoint, why the proposition is invalid.Your examples are subsidiary to the proposition that existence and matter are either eternal or they are not. They therefore, are no examples to the proposition that there are only 2 logical possibities of the existence of things. In an effort to avoid the force of an argument,people will really work hard to avoid an obvious conclusion. It does not matter what the character of a specific diety is or is not, in connection with the rational behind the simple conclusion that there are only 2 logical possibiltes. No example of a diety or any example of how material possibly found its way here will remove this obvious fact.
Your continued attempts to complain about me forcing only two possibilites, is a further indication that you have no other alternatives in reality or a logical solution to the simple yet understandable proposition.
Let see if this one helps. What this is my friend is an obvious attempt (ludicrous I might add) to avoid an obvious conclusion of the only possibiltes. You do realize that finite (limited in character and scope, while I thank you for that admission, it is the first ime I have ever come across that) and uncaused would force you to the conclusion that it brought itself into existence, correct?. Or are you saying it is limted in time, scope and character, yet somehow was just always there or came from somewhere else? With the very odd argument you have just presented above, it is hard to know how to proceed, it makes no sense.Any science is first and foremost a process of deductive reasoning but when there are no other solutions about it, one must be honest about it as well.Not when there are absolutely, positively, without hesitation and or reservation no other possibilites. Unfalsifiable and axiomatic in character are exacally what describe the proposition here, not because they are speculation, there are no other possibilites. Its hardly a fallacy, if it cant even be touched. Im still waiting.Not to embarrass you further, because it is obvious you are struggling here, so I will quit asking you to provide(let you off the proverbial hook) that which you obviously cannot, I will make the following point to move the discussion further along. It is the contention of the thiest that this simple point that ohters and now myself are making, points to the fact that creation is an obvious possible conclusion derived from the science of logic and deductive reasoning, that avoids the possibility of religious influence initially. This puts the creative act in the class of scientific possibilities, given the fact that there are only "really" two logcal possibiltes, even in the examples you provided. Even if we remove all of the possibilites that are subsidiary to the main ones, the creative act stilll remains as logical and ligitimate, therefore presentable. It would be much more fun to see and example to my proposition than your sarcasm and abuse. If the best you can do is to and present an obvious contradiction in the character of admitting something is limited yet was always there or it is simply uncaused, Iwill take this as an admission of defeat. Who is really being childish. LOL. "Refutations"?. Do you even know what the words means? Give me a break.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Agobot writes:When you are ready to produce some evidence for this comment other than a bare assertion I will be happy to respond. Dear Albert can use any verbage or rational to avoid obvious truths in the same way Rahvin or anyone else can. But keep trying its fun to watch.In turn, let me let an inspired Apostle explain my God to you."The wisdom of men is foolishness to God and the foolisness of God is wiser than men"."But God commended his Love towrds us, in that while we were yet in opposition to him, he gave his Son to die on our behalf".D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Bertot writes:Cavediver writesIt was just a joke Moron, ha, ha. Ill try and do better Dad. Besides all of this I am a Vikings fan, which is just as about as bad, even if they are in the same conference.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Agobot writes:Well like the situation with Rahvin, I am waiting for more than assertions and accusations about the manner in which you represented the God of the Bible. Perhaps you can actually formulate an argument, or should I revert back to the statement that got all this going in the first place:Agobot writes: Im still waiting and by the way, dont worry offending me in your reponses, Ive heard and seen much better than you could ever get away with.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

CD writes:Ill try and get to this in a while.
Thanks for stating your proposition, I thought it was going to be about God directly , but ok.D Bertot

AB writes:As before I see nothing here to respond to directly and I have no idea what you mean by "meaning". If possibly you could elaborate on what your specific point is, we could continue. Did you mean "prove that, meaning "CAN'T" spontaneously arise out of nonsense"?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cavediver writes: The logic you request has already been provided in the discussion I was having with Rahvin.Its not my responsibility to demonstrate beyond logic and comonsense what is easily observable and understandable, there are no other choices. If the experiment you are advocating here is the sameone Agobot is advancing above, I would ask you to set it out in a couple of paragraphs in simple language. If we are going to use Agobots verbage, that it "proved matter could arise out of nothing", then I would say such an idea is the imagination desperate individuals looking for any answer but that of God. Can anyone be foolish enough to believe that something can come from nothing? No matter (no pun intended) what is appears to be coming from or not coming from, it came from something other than nothing. There very idea that people that call themselves scientist and the such like would adopt such a position is complete nonsense. When pushed on this point most of them will say, well it was another universe or another demension or something, because they are smart enough to know something does not come from nothing.If this is the theory you are advancing, then yes, I would reject it as nonsense. But present it anyway.AB writes: Why dont I just start calling you the man/person of a thousand assertions and accusations. How do you respond to such a nonsensical statement? Only science gone bad would come to such a nonsensical conclusion. I see even your hesitation in believing in it in your words, "shows more or less". The very idea that something can come form absolute nothingness is absurd beyond any logic or rational thought. I understood what your comment meant, I was simply trying to get you to formulate it into an argument. You believe it is pure nonsense, fine. Simply state why. Closed minded hardly characterizes those of us fundies who stay here and debate. It is interesting though to watch a person such as youself use such terminology, appear, to be fully unaware that they themselves are no more than 'Secular Fundamnetalists'. But you are blind to everything else, so I suppose one more is not going to hurt. Sensitivity should be one of your watchwords, seeing that it takes nothing but a spark to set you off in any direction. Hey, but you keep those, rose colored glasses, tunnel vision goggles and blinders on, they havent helped you in any argument thus far and probably won't in the future.D Bertot

Cavediver writes:While 'two apes walking' {Agobot} is suspended could you post a place that I could take a look at this Proposal you mentioned. I am familiar with Hawkin only from the episode of the Simpsons where he is with Homer in the bar and Moe asks,"who is paying for these beers", Homer responds, in Hawkin's box voice, "I am". Hawkins says, "I did not say that", Homer says, "Yes you did". The boxing glove comes out of the wheelchair and hits Homer in the face, now thats funny stuff. Archie Bunker notwithstanding, the those Hebs are very funny, ofcourse I am just kidding there. I had a best friend on a previous job that I referred to as a Heb and he also referred to me as Dago, pasata burping Wap, all of which is very true. Thise were some good times.Anywho, if you could post that I would appreciate it.Thanks Dad.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.