Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 559
  1. #221
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You keep reading three individuals equals one individual. Where have I ever said that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Because you keep saying three individuals make up "Godhood". And "Godhood" is NOTHING like you and I are part of "humanity".
    They do, only three.

    Billions of humans make up humanity.
    Three individuals make up the godhood.
    EVERY human being has a human nature. They all share the ONE nature, the same essence - that of humanness.
    THREE individual Beings all share in the ONE unique nature of divinity - they are all omniscience, omnipotent, eternal Beings. How is that illogical???

    We are like God in particular ways - we think, we reason, we love, we appreciate beauty, we can ponder morals and know goodness and evil. We are like God in these aspects and others. We are different from God in our nature in that we are limited in our power or knowledge, or existence. We had a beginning. He does not. So, our natures are different than God's. We lack the essence, the attributes, the abilities that God has by His nature. How is this illogical???

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    This is not true. The apostles and writers of the NT continually reveal the Son is God, just as the Father is God. They continual teach the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This is with NO doubts true!!
    Judaism denies Jesus is God. They believe he is just a man as you and I. Since they are the "chosen" it makes no sense they are spreading the wrong message????
    Judaism does not recognize their Messiah.

    So what if Judaism teaches otherwise? Do their Scriptures teach that their Messiah would come before the fall/destruction of the second temple?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It shows an area of brain activity where electrons are firing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Not at all!!

    A fMRI can actually show a picture of the actual cat you at thinking about. IOW, seeing what you are seeing in your mind! Not just blood flow or neurons firing, but the picture you see in your own mind when you think of a cat (or whatever).
    Very cool and scary stuff, but definitely your thoughts can be "read" by machines!
    Please give me your references for this information.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Because most people disagree does not make it false.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Of course it does not normally. But in this case it is God's wishes to be with humans and most humans that have ever lived are not going to be with him and he knew it would be so when he decided to create us!!
    God desires to have a relationship with humans who will respect and honor Him because He is the greater and wiser Being. Adam chose not to do this. Adam decided to know the difference between good and evil. He decided to do what he wanted rather than what God decreed was good. Humanity has been living according to this human standard since that time. Most see the evil inflicted by human beings upon each other. Some long for escape and justice for evil. Some do not know the difference between good and evil because their consciences are seared. They ignore God to their peril.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Sure, it was blunt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    You are correct, I only said smug because you did. I should have said it was arrogant and insulting. Not that I'm immune from making such comments, but it's not a type of commentary I aspire to make and rarely defend when I do.....
    You are not immune. You admit it. Thus, your statement below about not knowing you have sinned is mute, isn't it? Therefore, are you not being hypocritical in condemning my actions when you have done likewise?

    And you have to take into account someone's motive for what they say and do. I do not carry a grudge. Do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I just happen to speak my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    As do I, but as I age, I attempt to argue in a respectful manner.
    As I said, I harbor no ill-will towards you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Have you ever sinned?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Not that I'm aware of.
    So, you are not aware of lying even once in your life?
    You are not aware of committing adultery, of lusting after a woman who was not your wife?
    You are not aware of ever dishonoring your parents?
    You are not aware of intentionally taking something that did not belong to you, like the pen at work, or borrowing a book from your neighbor and never returning it?
    Have you ever wanted something that someone else owned?
    Have you ever not given God the respect and worship He deserves?

    If you qualify for any of these, you have wronged God.

    What is the penalty or 'wages' for sin, according to the Bible?

    Romans 6:23 (NASB)
    For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    He has spoken to you via 66 different human authors, all inspired by His Spirit. Many of these authors quote from God at times, laying out His revelation to humanity. You do not accept His authority. You want God to reveal Himself in some other way, other than what He has chosen. That is your problem, not mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Why is it such a BIG deal for God himself to acknowledge the Bible is his word instead of having to rely on humans telling me it is so?????
    He has chosen to do it this way. Why does He have to do it your way? Why is it such a big deal to you that God should have to submit and subject Himself to what a limited creature, such as you, wills?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    God does not bow to our requirements of Him as if He needs to justify
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I have not asked that he "justify" anything. How is allowing those who may want to fallow you, actually know that you exist, equate to "justifying" anything?
    Justification is a legal term. When you come before a judge, and your case is examined, either you are justified or condemned. Since God is the highest Judge and highest appeal, who else can be appealed to that is above Him? He does not have to justify Himself before you because He is the Creator of all things. He gives/grants life. He has the right to take it away. You do not. You did not create life on earth. God owns all things. The world is His and everything in the universe. Therefore, He can't steal; He already owns everything. He can't lie; it goes against His nature. He has nothing to hide being almighty and omniscience. He can't worship anyone above Him because there is no one above Him. You, on the other hand, fail on all these points.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If I have taken a life and I am standing before a firing squad, and the law requires life for life, then someone volunteers their life in place of mine, the debt has been paid on my behalf because the law has been met - life for life!
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Oh good, as long as I can get somebody to take my punishment for me, I can do whatever I want and no worries and God is happy with me. I need do nothing good and can live life however I want as long as "someone" gets punished!!
    Since it is God you have sinned against, it is God who you must answer to.

    Someone who is not righteous cannot take your punishment when it concerns God for there is only One who has ever been righteous enough to stand within His presence. The only reason a Christian can stand in His presence is that we have an alien righteousness, not our own. That righteousness is imputed to us, counted to our account because of another who has deposited what is necessary to meet the payment required of us - a righteous life. That righteousness is obtained through FAITH in Jesus Christ! That is the requirement God seeks of you under the New Covenant.

    Romans 3
    No One Is Righteous
    9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
    “There is no one righteous, not even one;
    11
    there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
    12
    All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”
    13
    “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”
    “The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
    14
    “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
    15
    “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
    16
    ruin and misery mark their ways,
    17
    and the way of peace they do not know.”
    18
    “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
    19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

    So, if you can find a righteous person, other than Jesus to stand in your place before God, then good luck to you. If you decide to stand on your merit, good luck to you! If you choose to deny God, good luck to you!!!

    Do you identify yourself with the list given in Romans 3 or are you self-righteous?
    We become conscious of sin because of the law. It tells us what is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Charlie Manson (among many, many others...) did this. Get people to fallow you. Many will give their lives for you if you are convincing enough!

    I absolutely can not figure how you can see justice in this statement!! Utterly ridiculous.
    Charlie Manson sinned. How is he going to meet the righteous requirements of God on his merit? He has already forfeited his righteousness by what he has done. Thus, he can't stand in my stead, pleading for me by his wages, what he has earned. His advocacy is spent. He has no capital to represent me before God. Only One has!

    If you want justice, then you need to be righteous, or you too will be judged. Are you righteous? Tell me someone who will meet God's righteousness that can speak on my behalf before God. I can't plead on my behalf, by what I have done. I recognize my guilt. The fool does not. He thinks he has enough merit to meet a perfect standard of righteousness by which we will be judged.

    John 3:16 (NASB)
    16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

    That is the good news of salvation, that God loved us enough to save us by His Son.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How can the taking of a second innocent life (the person taking your punishment for you) equal out the taking of the first innocent life (the innocent person you killed) in the "eyes" of God????
    God knew no human being could live up to His standard of righteousness once Adam, of his own free will, disobeyed God. Adam's nature changed on the day he ate of the fruit. He knew evil. He knew he had done wrong and he hid from God (Genesis 3:8).

    God, through His chosen covenant people (Israel), has demonstrated that they never lived up to the standard of righteousness God instituted by following the Law of Moses (stipulated in the covenant). Since Adam, that righteous requirement to live a pure life before God has not been seen, except in Jesus Christ.

    The Son (the Second Adam) volunteered to become human, to live the life required by God to meet His righteousness and to pay the penalty for wrongful actions. He did what the first Adam failed to do. Then the Son volunteered to die for sinners, for those who had wronged God, that if we would believe in Him, trust in His righteous offering instead of our own, God would consider that offering an appeasement for our sins. It is not like God the Father demanded of the Son that He die for us. The Son willingly did this!

    In war when someone takes a bullet that was meant for you or jumps on a hand grenade to save you and others are you ungrateful for this selfless act of love and valor, of putting your needs and your safety above that of their own?

    As I said, your issue is with God and you will answer to Him, in His time, either based on your merit or the merit of another - Jesus! If you do not wish to heed His warning that is between Him and you. You do not stand condemned or condoned because of what I say. It is not my right or ability to do either. You stand condemned or condoned based on what you have done before God, or on what God has done for you.

    One other difference. When God renews our minds, changes our nature, so we are no longer hostile to God (as all who sin are), we seek to do what God has commanded out of love for Him.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 06:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

    PS. On that last point, we inherit Adam's nature. We have been born into that human nature that knows good and evil and that does good and evil. Adam represented us before God in the Garden. Genetically, we trace our life to his. I believe we would have chosen the same outcome because we have a will to choose.
    Jesus Christ also represents us before God, yet He was without sin. Therefore the new birth is a birth into righteousness. In Christ, we are born into this newness of life.

    Peter

  2. #222
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    They do, only three.

    Billions of humans make up humanity.
    Three individuals make up the godhood.
    EVERY human being has a human nature. They all share the ONE nature, the same essence - that of humanness.
    THREE individual Beings all share in the ONE unique nature of divinity - they are all omniscience, omnipotent, eternal Beings. How is that illogical???
    This still makes on sense, but let's say I agree for a moment:

    Then there are three Gods, not one...

    ---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Judaism does not recognize their Messiah.

    So what if Judaism teaches otherwise? Do their Scriptures teach that their Messiah would come before the fall/destruction of the second temple?
    God chose Jew's to spread the WRONG message and you see no issue ???

    This makes no sense.

    ---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, you are not aware of lying even once in your life?

    If you qualify for any of these, you have wronged God.
    Yes, as far as I know, I have not sinned.

    If your world view is correct, then I have, if you are incorrect then I have not.

    At the moment, I have no reason to believe one over the other with any amount of certainty, so I am unaware of having sinned.

    ---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So, if you can find a righteous person, other than Jesus to stand in your place before God, then good luck to you. If you decide to stand on your merit, good luck to you! If you choose to deny God, good luck to you!!!
    Your example said nothing of a "righteous person"!

    Your story twists as we go.

  3. #223
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Belthazor

    Unfortunately, Christians consider anything that offends their god to be a "sin."

    The reason that is unfortunate is because almost everything a human does OFFENDS their god..."everything" that is except sucking up to the god.

    That is why Christians use the mantra, "We all are sinners."

    Imagine what they are saying to their god with that! They are saying that simply being a human (in other words, simply being a creation of their god)...is offensive to the god.

    I'm an agnostic...and I have to acknowledge that the god Christians claim to love MIGHT exist. If it does...we are all in a heap of trouble, because NO ONE could possibly live up to the standards demanded by that god...AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO.

    That is very important, so let me repeat it: NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARDS THE CHRISTIAN GOD SUPPOSEDLY DEMANDS.

    I want to respect Christians...but it is my opinion that what they say about their god...is ten times as insulting to any GOD that might exist than anything I have ever heard coming from any atheist.

  4. #224
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    They do, only three.

    Billions of humans make up humanity.
    Three individuals make up the godhood.
    EVERY human being has a human nature. They all share the ONE nature, the same essence - that of humanness.
    THREE individual Beings all share in the ONE unique nature of divinity - they are all omniscience, omnipotent, eternal Beings. How is that illogical???
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This still makes no sense, but let's say I agree for a moment:

    Then there are three Gods, not one...
    No, the three Persons are one God (what God is), not three different gods (polytheism); one in nature, essence, attributes, UNITY, ability, knowledge, everything that incorporates what God is.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Judaism does not recognize their Messiah.

    So what if Judaism teaches otherwise? Do their Scriptures teach that their Messiah would come before the fall/destruction of the second temple?
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    God chose Jew's to spread the WRONG message and you see no issue ???
    Not at all. The Christian Scriptures are based on the Jewish Scriptures. They fulfill them. The messengers of the Jewish Scriptures were looking for the Messiah, the Anointed One to rescue them. These messengers warned the Jews of God's covenant wrath if they did not repent. The Jewish prophecies speak of coming judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    This makes no sense.
    It makes sense to millions.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So, you are not aware of lying even once in your life?

    If you qualify for any of these, you have wronged God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Yes, as far as I know, I have not sinned.

    If your world view is correct, then I have, if you are incorrect then I have not.
    What do you think sin is? Sin is wrongful action. Have you never wronged anyone? You already admitted to as much in the previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    At the moment, I have no reason to believe one over the other with any amount of certainty, so I am unaware of having sinned.
    Again, you never answered a single query. I questioned you regarding the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So, if you can find a righteous person, other than Jesus to stand in your place before God, then good luck to you. If you decide to stand on your merit, good luck to you! If you choose to deny God, good luck to you!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your example said nothing of a "righteous person"!
    It most definitely does - the Lord Jesus Christ!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Your story twists as we go.
    How so?

    I have continually said that you nor I meet God's righteousness on our merit. I have consistently said that only One does.
    I have laid out the predicament we are in and to ignore it is at our peril. I have invited you (and others) to test the logic and reasonableness of the Bible. I offered to do this with prophecy.
    I have also questioned (in the past) your relative moral standards and how you make sense of them. I don't see you being able to, which speaks volumes for your worldview.

    Peter

  5. #225
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Belthazor

    Unfortunately, Christians consider anything that offends their god to be a "sin."

    The reason that is unfortunate is because almost everything a human does OFFENDS their god..."everything" that is except sucking up to the god.

    That is why Christians use the mantra, "We all are sinners."

    Imagine what they are saying to their god with that! They are saying that simply being a human (in other words, simply being a creation of their god)...is offensive to the god.

    I'm an agnostic...and I have to acknowledge that the god Christians claim to love MIGHT exist. If it does...we are all in a heap of trouble, because NO ONE could possibly live up to the standards demanded by that god...AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO.

    That is very important, so let me repeat it: NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARDS THE CHRISTIAN GOD SUPPOSEDLY DEMANDS.

    I want to respect Christians...but it is my opinion that what they say about their god...is ten times as insulting to any GOD that might exist than anything I have ever heard coming from any atheist.
    Generally, I agree. I can't count how many times I have heard "we are all "sinners" (from my own girlfriend no less!). Even when I was young I was like "speak for yourself buddy" (the whole "throwing rocks in glass houses thing..).

    God creating humans to disobey on purpose, then "punish" them for doing so (since he knew what humans would do before we were created, we really have no other choice than to disobey, because we HAVE to, God knows how we turned out!! There is no way we can change the future (what God already knows about us)!!!).
    For instance, God knew PGA2 and I would argue about this and what the outcome would be. How could I possibly change anything!!!....

    How is it that God letting the Romans kill Jesus equates to all human sins are forgiven?

    How does ANY INNOCENT THING BEING KILLED cause for sins of a human to be forgiven?

    How come the rest of the world was blissfully unaware of what was happening in the middle east? If humans had not learned to travel the earth, how would these people ever had heard of Jesus? North America, Australia, China (among others), had no clue who God was?
    Why is the only evidence offered for the Christian God come from humans!
    How is it that Jesus actually "dies" since he currently lives and it seems always has. It TOTALLY takes the meaning of "Death" away" ???
    How is it that anyone else can "pay the price for my crimes"?

    The real issue is:
    If I die an unbeliever, then there was really no way for me to believe there was a God, because God knew before I was born whether I would be saved or not before I die!!!
    There just is NO way for me to change what "will be", as it has already been decided (or known) what I will do!!

    Not to mention (well, guess I will, again), if you don't die when you die what does death mean?

    "Inquiring minds want to know"


    ---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, the three Persons are one God (what God is), not three different gods (polytheism); one in nature, essence, attributes, UNITY, ability, knowledge, everything that incorporates what God is.
    This doesn't equate to you/me/humanness at all. You and I share being human, but we at are not "one" in any sense.

    There are three or one.

    ---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not at all. The Christian Scriptures are based on the Jewish Scriptures. They fulfill them. The messengers of the Jewish Scriptures were looking for the Messiah, the Anointed One to rescue them. These messengers warned the Jews of God's covenant wrath if they did not repent. The Jewish prophecies speak of coming judgment.
    How does this answer God choosing people to send the wrong message?

    ---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    It makes sense to millions.
    But not to the vast BILLIONs that have ever lived???

    ---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What do you think sin is? Sin is wrongful action.
    Good question. I don't have an answer, I don't know.
    I don't even know if there is such a "thing"......

    ---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Again, you never answered a single query. I questioned you regarding the law.
    I guess you will have to ask again, as I am not sure what you are referring to?

    ---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    It most definitely does - the Lord Jesus Christ!
    Big negative there. You said:


    " Originally Posted by PGA2
    If I have taken a life and I am standing before a firing squad, and the law requires life for life, then someone volunteers their life in place of mine, the debt has been paid on my behalf because the law has been met - life for life!"

    You said nothing about Jesus at all (story twisting example...)!
    (emphasis mine).

    Though, I don't see how adding Jesus changes much in this case...

  6. #226
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Generally, I agree. I can't count how many times I have heard "we are all "sinners" (from my own girlfriend no less!). Even when I was young I was like "speak for yourself buddy" (the whole "throwing rocks in glass houses thing..).

    God creating humans to disobey on purpose, then "punish" them for doing so (since he knew what humans would do before we were created, we really have no other choice than to disobey, because we HAVE to, God knows how we turned out!! There is no way we can change the future (what God already knows about us)!!!).
    For instance, God knew PGA2 and I would argue about this and what the outcome would be. How could I possibly change anything!!!....

    How is it that God letting the Romans kill Jesus equates to all human sins are forgiven?

    How does ANY INNOCENT THING BEING KILLED cause for sins of a human to be forgiven?


    How come the rest of the world was blissfully unaware of what was happening in the middle east? If humans had not learned to travel the earth, how would these people ever had heard of Jesus? North America, Australia, China (among others), had no clue who God was?
    Why is the only evidence offered for the Christian God come from humans!
    How is it that Jesus actually "dies" since he currently lives and it seems always has. It TOTALLY takes the meaning of "Death" away" ???
    How is it that anyone else can "pay the price for my crimes"?

    The real issue is:
    If I die an unbeliever, then there was really no way for me to believe there was a God, because God knew before I was born whether I would be saved or not before I die!!!
    There just is NO way for me to change what "will be", as it has already been decided (or known) what I will do!!

    Not to mention (well, guess I will, again), if you don't die when you die what does death mean?
    I've highlighted an area I'd like to say a few words about.

    To a Christian, essentially, a "sin" is something a human does that offends the Christian god. (If anyone disagrees with that, please do so and we can discuss it.)

    So...the Christian god supposedly indicated that it was willing to "forgive" humans for offending it (for instance, by "lying" as mentioned in PGA's comment to you)...but with the following proviso: You must first torture and kill my son.

    What on Earth makes that a sign that the god "so loved the world?"

    If you were indebted to another human and that human said to you, "I will forgive you what you owe me...but only if you first torture and kill my son"...you would probably go to the police and attempt to get that individual institutionalized.

    None of this makes any sense...although there was a time in my life where I pretended that it did.

  7. #227
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    But putting all that aside...the problem one runs into with the "If something exists" or (in my opinion, failed) attempt to make it more logical "IF something began to exist..." then it has a cause...is that it demands an infinite regression. If you can find an exception...and merely introducing the assertion REQUIRES an exception...it contradicts itself.

    Even if one could sell the notion "If a thing exists..." or "If a thing begins to exist..." it has to have a cause...one would also have to assert that any cause found...itself had a cause...or in that latter case, never "began" to exist. If there is an uncaused cause...the argument defeats itself.
    I could be interpretting your response incorrectly, but you seem to be conflating two separate premises.

    1) All things that exist, have a cause.

    2) All things that begin to exist have a cause.

    There is a world of difference between requiring a cause for all things and requiring a cause for changes. I agree with you that it doesn't seem intuitive at all to say that something that has always existed necessarily needs a cause. But that doesn't seem the case when we are talking about changes. We wouldn't observe an object changing color from red to blue and assume it didn't have a reason, a cause for doing so. Something had to cause that change. Likewise, we don't see asteroid's orbits change and not conclude that another object affected their movement. Changes absolutely do require a cause.

    There is a reason that it is a fundamental principle within physics and philosophy both. Lumber becoming a chair requires some kind of causal explanation, it can be a carpenter, magic, quantum fluctuations, whatever, but it doesn't happen just becuase.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Most "holgrammers" would believe the moon was there if they were standing on it.
    Would they? As I noted earlier, they seem more prepared to move to it being an artificial space station (hollow moon) than to accept the reality positioned in front of them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    2. I am not such a person that denies the incredibly obvious and God is not "clear" to me at all. I would be genuinely interested to know that he existed and to be honest, I have no interest in denying any truth, especially if it affected my world view. I am SURE I believe things that are not true, and I am actively searching them out. So, again, you "Moon" analogy isn't working for me (in this case).
    Ah, this is a different question. Above I was responding to the critique often made that we shouldn't expect any believers if God exists. Here though I need to ask why you don't believe, which is a bit more difficult of a question. (And frankly a somewhat thorny one prone for miscommunications on the internet). This type of question might be better handled via PM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I still think it's a fair question, care to answer it...
    TBH, I'm not sure that I could. Perhaps that is ODN jading speaking, but I've spent dozens of pages defending the claim that increasing the price of something decreases how much people buy of it, or that mandate means require, or a hundred other examples of people desperately ignoring evidence for the sake of a conclusion (and that doesn't include all the times I probably fell victim to it myself).


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    When you discuss the "cause" of the universe you are discussing what happened at a "time before time began"....this seems problematic...
    If I was saying that something happened in the minute before the big bang, I would agree with you. But I'm talking about causally prior, not temporally prior.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    However, given that EVERYTHING we "know" does not apply prior to the Big Bang, how can you say these things???
    Well physical laws might not apply causally prior to the big bang (and I think there is some debate on that), but I'm not sure that logical laws would. If we are saying that something like the law of non-contradiction doesn't exist outside our physical/temporal spacetime I think we run into a whole host of problems.

    a) I'm not sure why that would be. I don't know why laws of logic would be bound to these particular dimensions or why the lack of them would make something like a married bachelor possible.

    b) It creates the possibility for absurdity. We essentially abandon any rational ability to discuss the topic, which seems problematic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    QM shows us that "illogical" things happen
    QM shows us unintuitive things happen all the time, not illogical things. Nothing in QM violations causation or logical principles that I'm aware of.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Can you support that "something/anything" can be eternal and without cause?

    You claim the universe can not, but God can.
    Can you support God can be eternal and not require a cause?
    Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that a universe cannot be eternal, I'm claiming that our universe (or multi-verse) is not eternal. There isn't anything logically contradictary about an eternal universe, it just wouldn't look like this one.

    If God is eternal, He wouldn't require a cause is my contention. Going back to my discussion with Frank above, what requires a cause is the act of beginning to exist. If God has always existed, He never began to exist and thus trying to explain how he began to exist becomes meaningless. The same would be true with a past eternal universe. If we imagine a past eternal universe that has always existed, it wouldn't have begun to exist either, so no explanation would be required.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #228
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I could be interpretting your response incorrectly, but you seem to be conflating two separate premises.

    1) All things that exist, have a cause.

    2) All things that begin to exist have a cause.

    There is a world of difference between requiring a cause for all things and requiring a cause for changes. I agree with you that it doesn't seem intuitive at all to say that something that has always existed necessarily needs a cause. But that doesn't seem the case when we are talking about changes. We wouldn't observe an object changing color from red to blue and assume it didn't have a reason, a cause for doing so. Something had to cause that change. Likewise, we don't see asteroid's orbits change and not conclude that another object affected their movement. Changes absolutely do require a cause.

    There is a reason that it is a fundamental principle within physics and philosophy both. Lumber becoming a chair requires some kind of causal explanation, it can be a carpenter, magic, quantum fluctuations, whatever, but it doesn't happen just becuase.
    I am not conflating anything. I am treating the two as related in a way that makes any distinction as being one without an appreciable difference.

    The problem (for your argument) which ensues with the line of reasoning you are proposing for something that “begins to exist”…SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED…is that the "change" then must resolve itself into an infinite regression.

    If you are going to posit something as the cause of something that “began to exist”…either you make that something that “began to exist” (which I could do gratuitously as was done with “the universe”}…or posit that it always existed (is without a beginning.)

    Why not cut out the middleman?

    All of which we can discuss at great length and get nowhere, because there is not going to be a lot of giving…in what is essentially a hypothetical. We cannot establish that “THE UNIVERSE” began to exist. Even if we stipulated or conceded that this thing we humans call “the universe” (a paltry few hundreds of billions of stars in each of a paltry few hundreds of billions of galaxies stretched out in space it takes light billions of years to traverse)…it may be nothing more than a tiny speck in THE UNIVERSE that may always have existed.

    IF you use the IF in your P1 or P2…you end up with a C that begins with, “Therefore it is possible that….blah, blah, blah.

    I concede that. We ought all to concede that.

    But we end up right where we started.

    I suspect you see that.

    Just for the hell of it…attempt my little experiment.

    Here is a “C”: Therefore at least one god must exist.

    Fill in the P1 and P2 that gets you there.

    I do not think it can be done…which is why I see your attempts to do so by making so many arbitrary assumptions as futile.


    One final comment. In your reply to Belthazor, you wrote:

    Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that a universe cannot be eternal, I'm claiming that our universe (or multi-verse) is not eternal. There isn't anything logically contradictary about an eternal universe, it just wouldn't look like this one.
    You are WAY to intelligent not to see that as a totally gratuitous, self-serving assertion.

    IT IS POSSIBLE THIS UNIVERSE...however composed...IS eternal and infinite...something that never had a beginning, but has always existed.

    How can you declare it otherwise...except gratuitously?

  9. #229
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Would they? As I noted earlier, they seem more prepared to move to it being an artificial space station (hollow moon) than to accept the reality positioned in front of them.
    I thought the question was did the moon exist ("hologrammers"?), not what it was made of. Most would believe it exists if the traveled there and could get out and touch it.

    ---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    TBH, I'm not sure that I could. Perhaps that is ODN jading speaking, but I've spent dozens of pages defending the claim that increasing the price of something decreases how much people buy of it, or that mandate means require, or a hundred other examples of people desperately ignoring evidence for the sake of a conclusion (and that doesn't include all the times I probably fell victim to it myself).
    I asked could you make a convincing argument, not could you convince everyone with your argument.

    How would you attempt to show/convince me you didn't exist?

    ---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ah, this is a different question. Above I was responding to the critique often made that we shouldn't expect any believers if God exists. Here though I need to ask why you don't believe, which is a bit more difficult of a question. (And frankly a somewhat thorny one prone for miscommunications on the internet). This type of question might be better handled via PM?
    (I assume you meant "non-believer" in that sentence and will respond accordingly.)

    Agreed, if God does exist I imagine and assume there would still be people that would deny it.

    Two your second point, to believe or not is kinda really what the thread is about, though once it gets personal (my beliefs) I do see the possibility of wondering from the Op. So, let's give it a shot and if we start to wonder too far I will defer to our current PM conversation.

    Really, it's not that I don't believe I so much as, I am not seeing the reason to believe, and frankly given no real evidence either way, the safe/default position is to not choose till more/better information is obtained.

    Of the three major religions, no one stands out as truth, which makes no sense. They are mutually exclusive so the choice needs to be carefully considered (or I sense special pleading...).

    And,
    If the Christian God exists it should be clear to me (should I care to know) as that I am alive (given what is in the Bible).

    ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If I was saying that something happened in the minute before the big bang, I would agree with you. But I'm talking about causally prior, not temporally prior.
    We start with the "singularity", then a "cause", then the BB. How is a temporal situation avoided?

    ---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If God is eternal, He wouldn't require a cause is my contention.
    Can you support a living being can be eternal, or not affected by time?





    ---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    QM shows us unintuitive things happen all the time, not illogical things. Nothing in QM violations causation or logical principles that I'm aware of.
    Pardon my semantics...

    Ok, crazy, weird, seemingly impossible things happen (entangled particles anyone) that defy human understanding (at least at the moment).
    At the point of singularity our lack of understanding (ignorance) is orders of magnitude larger.

    Again, I see making predictions in such a scenario difficult indeed.


    Also, I asked before but,

    if our universe was a singularity prior to the BB, then obviously it existed prior to the BB, just in a different state.
    So it seems time "began to exist" post BB, not the universe itself, as all of the current matter/energy was present at the point of singularity prior to the BB????

  10. #230
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you are going to posit something as the cause of something that “began to exist”…either you make that something that “began to exist” (which I could do gratuitously as was done with “the universe”}…or posit that it always existed (is without a beginning.)

    Why not cut out the middleman?
    This response seems to have moved more into an objection of Premise 2, the universe began to exist rather than an objection to premise 1. I'd like to, as you suggested, stick to the specifics of premise 1 first before moving on to premise 2.

    The premise is: "All things that begin to exist have a cause."

    That premise can either be true or it can be false. To hold that it is false is to subscribe to its converse, "Not all things that begin to exist have a cause."

    By definition, one of these two premises must be true.

    So if someone were to deny premise one, they would be de facto asserting that some things begin to exist absent any cause. In which case they should always exist, right? After all, they don't need a trigger to start existing, they can just exist on their own, without any outside help. That would make the converse logically incoherent since those things that begin to exist shouldn't begin to exist, they should have always existed. If the converse in this scenario is false, than the original premise must be true by logical definition.

    We an add to that support from the causal principle both within physics and philosophy.

    Given that, do you have a specific objection to the truth value of premise one, that all things that begin to exist have a cause?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I thought the question was did the moon exist ("hologrammers"?), not what it was made of.
    I should have, perhaps, made my point a bit clearer. My point was that people often engage in a shifting the goalpost type of rationale to avoid a conclusion. For example, when the prime "evidence" for the holographic moon (a youtube video showing a display error) was debunked relatively conclusively, a lot of that community shifted over to saying "well that doesn't disprove that the moon is artificial." 9/11 conspiracy theorists are also very adept at this rationalization technique. We've seen "free fall velocity" shift to "angular velocity" and "jet fuel can't melt steel" to "it wouldn't weaken like that" and "tower seven didn't suffer damage" to "you can't prove the damage caused the collapse" and my favorite "there were no planes" to "the planes don't prove it wasn't controlled demolition."

    We see this tactic a lot in politics and other areas as well. People are far, far more likely to shift their conclusion incrementally (anchoring bias) due to discomfort of cognitive dissonance than to accept the conclusion of the facts presented.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    I asked could you make a convincing argument, not could you convince everyone with your argument.
    Ahh, well that is a different question indeed. How would you define a convincing argument in that scenario?


    Could I construct a logically valid argument? I'm pretty sure.

    Could I construct an argument whose premises are more likely true than not true? I certainly hope so.

    If that is the definition of a convincing argument I concede your point, but I'm not sure that is what you meant.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    (I assume you meant "non-believer" in that sentence and will respond accordingly.)
    You are correct, apologies.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Agreed, if God does exist I imagine and assume there would still be people that would deny it.
    Fair, we can set that argument aside then for others.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Really, it's not that I don't believe I so much as, I am not seeing the reason to believe, and frankly given no real evidence either way, the safe/default position is to not choose till more/better information is obtained.
    Ok, I'm willing to give it a shot. Just promise me that you will interpret what I write with the principle of charity. I don't mean to offend you at all.

    I agree with your first sentence quoted. If there were no evidence either way the safe (and coherent) position would be agnosticism.

    To understand a bit better, I hope you don't mind me asking some questions.

    What kind of evidence would you expect to find? What would you find stands out as truth?

    If, for example, I were to tell you something like "the greeks had calculated the earth's circumfrence (and therefore shape) in 240BC" (and let's presume you aren't using other sources for the moment) what kind of evidence would you want me to include with that claim to convince you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    We start with the "singularity", then a "cause", then the BB. How is a temporal situation avoided?
    Causal ordering does not need to arranged along a temporal dimension. There is a bit of a weakness in our language here. When we use the word "then" we often imply a "later point" that isn't necessary. Causal relationships can occur simultaneously or (at least hypothetically) temporally later. The two are not necessarily synonymous.

    We can see this in the example of a submerged log causing water displacement. The log does't become submerged and then the water is displaced, it is the act of submerging that displaces the water, the two happen simultaneously. We can also see this in quantum entanglement and a host of other more exotic phenomenon.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Can you support a living being can be eternal, or not affected by time?
    As in, is it possible for a living being to be an eternal, atemporal being?

    I would point out that first that nothing about the definition of a being means that it has to be finite in time or that it can't be atemporal. Thus it is certainly a logical possibility. I don't think any of the things we generally associate with personhood or individuality (will, intent, knowledge, sovereignty) are necessarily time bound.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Ok, crazy, weird, seemingly impossible things happen (entangled particles anyone) that defy human understanding (at least at the moment).
    At the point of singularity our lack of understanding (ignorance) is orders of magnitude larger.

    Again, I see making predictions in such a scenario difficult indeed.

    Agreed and agreed. I certainly wouldn't hazard to undertake any kind of physical description of that singularity. I wouldn't try to calculate temperature or density or relative strong force strength, etc. etc. Largely because our current understanding of those physical laws aren't detailed and complete enough to warrant a prediction of that sort.

    But because our physical laws don't fully describe that picture doesn't mean that we can throw out reason and logic as well. There is no reason to think that because we don't know the exact physical processes governing the very first moments of our universe we can then also throw out the reasoning that tells us that there are laws governing those moments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    if our universe was a singularity prior to the BB, then obviously it existed prior to the BB, just in a different state.
    So it seems time "began to exist" post BB, not the universe itself, as all of the current matter/energy was present at the point of singularity prior to the BB????
    That isn't cosmology's current understanding. At this point, describing it depends on which model we want to explore, but all of the models out there still have a definite point at which the universe goes from not-existing to existing. The idea of a steady state singularity is unappealing for a lot of physics and philosophy based reasons, not the least of which is that we would need to explain why the state change occurs (and that is a pretty massive problem since it would involve entire new mechanisms, and constants that at best don't fit into current law, and at worst overturn all existing law).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. Likes PGA2 liked this post
  12. #231
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This response seems to have moved more into an objection of Premise 2, the universe began to exist rather than an objection to premise 1. I'd like to, as you suggested, stick to the specifics of premise 1 first before moving on to premise 2.

    The premise is: "All things that begin to exist have a cause."

    That premise can either be true or it can be false. To hold that it is false is to subscribe to its converse, "Not all things that begin to exist have a cause."

    By definition, one of these two premises must be true.

    So if someone were to deny premise one, they would be de facto asserting that some things begin to exist absent any cause. In which case they should always exist, right? After all, they don't need a trigger to start existing, they can just exist on their own, without any outside help. That would make the converse logically incoherent since those things that begin to exist shouldn't begin to exist, they should have always existed. If the converse in this scenario is false, than the original premise must be true by logical definition.

    We an add to that support from the causal principle both within physics and philosophy.

    Given that, do you have a specific objection to the truth value of premise one, that all things that begin to exist have a cause?

    For the purposes of finally moving this discussion forward...I will agree without reservation that all things that begin to exist have a "cause."

  13. #232
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I should have, perhaps, made my point a bit clearer. My point was that people often engage in a shifting the goalpost type of rationale to avoid a conclusion. For example, when the prime "evidence" for the holographic moon (a youtube video showing a display error) was debunked relatively conclusively, a lot of that community shifted over to saying "well that doesn't disprove that the moon is artificial." 9/11 conspiracy theorists are also very adept at this rationalization technique. We've seen "free fall velocity" shift to "angular velocity" and "jet fuel can't melt steel" to "it wouldn't weaken like that" and "tower seven didn't suffer damage" to "you can't prove the damage caused the collapse" and my favorite "there were no planes" to "the planes don't prove it wasn't controlled demolition."

    We see this tactic a lot in politics and other areas as well. People are far, far more likely to shift their conclusion incrementally (anchoring bias) due to discomfort of cognitive dissonance than to accept the conclusion of the facts presented.


    Agreed, very common stuff (even here on ODN at times).

    However, the WTC conspiracy theory is slightly different (I think anyway), than boarding a rocket, seeing earth in the vast distance, standing on the moon, being able to grab a handful of it, and bring it back in the ship and touch it with your own hands.
    How many people that were actually "at" the WTC when it went down are promoting the "conspiracy theory"?...

    [/QUOTE]

    ---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Could I construct a logically valid argument? I'm pretty sure.

    Could I construct an argument whose premises are more likely true than not true? I certainly hope so.

    If that is the definition of a convincing argument I concede your point, but I'm not sure that is what you meant.
    Well, please give it a shot, cause:

    1. you either don't understand what I am askin
    2. I'm not askin it right
    3. you have an interesting answer I may have never considered

    Let's try for 3!

    ---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Ok, I'm willing to give it a shot. Just promise me that you will interpret what I write with the principle of charity. I don't mean to offend you at all.

    I agree with your first sentence quoted. If there were no evidence either way the safe (and coherent) position would be agnosticism.

    To understand a bit better, I hope you don't mind me asking some questions.

    What kind of evidence would you expect to find? What would you find stands out as truth?

    If, for example, I were to tell you something like "the greeks had calculated the earth's circumfrence (and therefore shape) in 240BC" (and let's presume you aren't using other sources for the moment) what kind of evidence would you want me to include with that claim to convince you?
    Good, lets go!

    Fair question, but wrong idea.
    You are now a human giving an argument to another human.

    My point has been, God knows me as well (some say better) than I do. He wants to "be" with me. He knows what I would find as compelling evidence as to his existence and that would be available to me.

    Why would God not want "his" existence known (to me)?
    Last edited by Belthazor; February 6th, 2018 at 07:11 PM.

  14. #233
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I've highlighted an area I'd like to say a few words about.

    To a Christian, essentially, a "sin" is something a human does that offends the Christian god. (If anyone disagrees with that, please do so and we can discuss it.)
    Some sins/wrongs are also offensive to other worldviews. Does murder offend you? Does someone stealing your property offend you? Does someone lying to you offend you? Does someone hitting on your wife/girlfriend offend you?

    I would say that when you fail to recognize these wrongs you are in trouble.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    So...the Christian god supposedly indicated that it was willing to "forgive" humans for offending it (for instance, by "lying" as mentioned in PGA's comment to you)...but with the following proviso: You must first torture and kill my son.
    The Son volunteered to undo what humanity was unable to undo, end the penalty of sin for those who would believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    What on Earth makes that a sign that the god "so loved the world?"
    He subjective Himself to His creation and became a Man to pay that penalty of death. He lived a completely righteous life before God, something no other accountable human being has been able to do. He WILLINGLY subjected Himself to an excruciating death for our benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you were indebted to another human and that human said to you, "I will forgive you what you owe me...but only if you first torture and kill my son"...you would probably go to the police and attempt to get that individual institutionalized.
    The question is rather, "How can a sinful person draw near to a holy God?" There is a barrier that takes place when a human being sins (a wrongful action) against a perfectly righteous and pure God. It begs the question how that relationship can be restored? With the taking of the fruit in the Garden Adam decided to live his life knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam's nature was changed the moment he took from the tree. We all inherit that changed nature (spiritual death/separation from God) from Adam. Jesus, the Second Adam, came to restore that living relationship with God.

    If your life was on the line and someone heroically stepped in your place would you be grateful, or would you spit on that person for saving you? If a man stepped in front of a bullet to save your life would you not want to honor what he did for you? Would you not want to express to his father how honorable he was? Instead you want to condemn the Father for sending the Son, the Son who volunteered to do what no other human being was able to do - live a righteous life on behalf of others and voluntarily pay a debt they could never afford to pay.

    You (to date) choose to reject that gift of righteousness and eternal life.

    Peter

  15. #234
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Causal ordering does not need to arranged along a temporal dimension. There is a bit of a weakness in our language here. When we use the word "then" we often imply a "later point" that isn't necessary. Causal relationships can occur simultaneously or (at least hypothetically) temporally later. The two are not necessarily synonymous.
    So here you are trying to convince me that a cause can occur after the effect and that is not illogical?

    ---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    He subjective Himself to His creation and became a Man to pay that penalty of death.
    Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert!!

    He didn't die!. He is still alive says Christianity.

    ---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As in, is it possible for a living being to be an eternal, atemporal being?

    I would point out that first that nothing about the definition of a being means that it has to be finite in time or that it can't be atemporal. Thus it is certainly a logical possibility. I don't think any of the things we generally associate with personhood or individuality (will, intent, knowledge, sovereignty) are necessarily time bound.
    A logical possibility I suppose, a likely possibility seems remote.

    ---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Agreed and agreed. I certainly wouldn't hazard to undertake any kind of physical description of that singularity. I wouldn't try to calculate temperature or density or relative strong force strength, etc. etc. Largely because our current understanding of those physical laws aren't detailed and complete enough to warrant a prediction of that sort.

    But because our physical laws don't fully describe that picture doesn't mean that we can throw out reason and logic as well. There is no reason to think that because we don't know the exact physical processes governing the very first moments of our universe we can then also throw out the reasoning that tells us that there are laws governing those moments.

    Perhaps, but I have been given no reason to believe we can really make any predictions in such a scenario.

    ---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn't cosmology's current understanding. At this point, describing it depends on which model we want to explore, but all of the models out there still have a definite point at which the universe goes from not-existing to existing. The idea of a steady state singularity is unappealing for a lot of physics and philosophy based reasons, not the least of which is that we would need to explain why the state change occurs (and that is a pretty massive problem since it would involve entire new mechanisms, and constants that at best don't fit into current law, and at worst overturn all existing law).
    Well it obviously isn't a "steady state" if it "BB's" is it? (you explain the "state change" with God so I don't understand the "philosophical" issue).

    Where did "steady state" come from anyway?

    Does a singularity exist as "something" or does it not?
    Your point does not make sense to me?

  16. #235
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Some sins/wrongs are also offensive to other worldviews. Does murder offend you? Does someone stealing your property offend you? Does someone lying to you offend you? Does someone hitting on your wife/girlfriend offend you?
    All of those things would offend me...and many of them are illegal...subject to punishment by government fiat.

    BUT to a Christian, essentially, a "sin" is something a human does that offends the Christian god.


    I would say that when you fail to recognize these wrongs you are in trouble.
    So would I...and I do not do any of those things.

    BUT that does not change what I said: To a Christian, essentially, a "sin" is something a human does that offends the Christian god.



    The Son volunteered to undo what humanity was unable to undo, end the penalty of sin for those who would believe.
    Yeah...that is the story. The god the Christians worship indicated it was willing to "forgive" humans for offending it...but it would not do so unless the humans were first willing to torture and kill its son.

    If your neighbor were to propose to "forgive" something you did to him/her, but only under the condition you first torture and kill his/her son, you would want to see that neighbor put away in an asylum...AND YOU KNOW THAT.

    He subjective Himself to His creation and became a Man to pay that penalty of death. He lived a completely righteous life before God, something no other accountable human being has been able to do. He WILLINGLY subjected Himself to an excruciating death for our benefit.
    And if your neighbor's son did that in order to have his parents forgive you your debts to them...YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT REASONABLE????

    C'mon. You know that part of the story is "WILLINGLY" insanity.



    The question is rather, "How can a sinful person draw near to a holy God?" There is a barrier that takes place when a human being sins (a wrongful action) against a perfectly righteous and pure God. It begs the question how that relationship can be restored? With the taking of the fruit in the Garden Adam decided to live his life knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam's nature was changed the moment he took from the tree. We all inherit that changed nature (spiritual death/separation from God) from Adam. Jesus, the Second Adam, came to restore that living relationship with God.
    The real question is why anyone would want to guess that a god exists...give the god the attributes Christianity has given it...and still pretend you are loving, rather than fearing the god.

    I can tell you this: If I guessed the Christian god existed...I would be in terror of the god, because the god is one of the most unreasonably demanding and vengeful gods that has ever been invented.

    If your life was on the line and someone heroically stepped in your place would you be grateful, or would you spit on that person for saving you? If a man stepped in front of a bullet to save your life would you not want to honor what he did for you? Would you not want to express to his father how honorable he was? Instead you want to condemn the Father for sending the Son, the Son who volunteered to do what no other human being was able to do - live a righteous life on behalf of others and voluntarily pay a debt they could never afford to pay.
    With all the respect in the world, PGA, if I offended my neighbor and my neighbor's son was willing to be tortured and killed by me in order to allow his parents to "forgive" me for offenses...I would consider the son and neighbors to be NUTS.

    You (to date) choose to reject that gift of righteousness and eternal life.
    I gotta acknowledge that I am not particularly interested in "eternal life." I've lived a great life...and since I am 81 now (re: the "to date" comment), at some point in the not too distant future, I am going to die...and that is okay with me. I am not interested in "eternal life." In fact, I think it would be a drag. And if someone told me I could obtain "eternal life" by dint of someone else being tortured and killed IN THIS LIFE...I'd say, "Take a hike."

    I will post the abortion comment in that other thread, Peter. Peace in this life to you, my friend. I am being brutally frank with you here. But I was where you are at one time...and I am sure you can listen to what I have to say intelligently.

  17. #236
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    665
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I gotta acknowledge that I am not particularly interested in "eternal life." I've lived a great life...and since I am 81 now (re: the "to date" comment), at some point in the not too distant future, I am going to die...and that is okay with me. I am not interested in "eternal life." In fact, I think it would be a drag.
    I think this is a point often overlooked (on purpose).

    What would you do for eternity? At some point you will have "seen it all, done it all, said it all....". Then what, sit and stare at each other?

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    I've lived a great life...and since I am 81 now .
    Congrads on 81 yrs!

    Though I am no where near that, it occurred to me the other day, most humans that have ever lived died before my current age.

    A rather sobering thought.....

  18. #237
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    He subjective Himself to His creation and became a Man to pay that penalty of death.
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert!!

    He didn't die!. He is still alive says Christianity.[COLOR="Silver"]
    He died. He rose again three days later. Over 500 people at that time saw a dead Man who was alive again.

    Peter

  19. #238
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I think this is a point often overlooked (on purpose).

    What would you do for eternity? At some point you will have "seen it all, done it all, said it all....". Then what, sit and stare at each other?

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------



    Congrads on 81 yrs!

    Though I am no where near that, it occurred to me the other day, most humans that have ever lived died before my current age.

    A rather sobering thought.....
    All good points, Belthazor.

    Live with as much gusto as possible!

    ---------- Post added at 07:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    He died. He rose again three days later. Over 500 people at that time saw a dead Man who was alive again.

    Peter
    Amazing!

    John Kennedy was killed in Dealey Plaza in November 1963. There were thousands of people witnessing the shooting...dozens of cops...more dozens of federal agents and Secret Service people...and cameras galore. And there is controversy about what happened, how it happened...who did what and from where.

    Yet this story from a book filled with myths you are willing to take as proof that a man who "died"...and came back to life?

    Do you not see the reason for extreme skeptisim?

  20. #239
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    705
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    No need for extreme skepticism, Frank ... just regular old skepticism!

    Indeed, the very same kind of skepticism which theists such as PGA apply to other religions' texts ...

  21. #240
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No need for extreme skepticism, Frank ... just regular old skepticism!

    Indeed, the very same kind of skepticism which theists such as PGA apply to other religions' texts ...
    Yup! You are right on the button there, FB.

    Another thought: Just as the "extreme skepticism" was extreme...I suppose the thoughts I often have that religion is at the root of most human problems...is extreme. But that is how I feel. Religion seems to be involved in almost all human conflict...even if just tangentially.

 

 
Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 06:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 09:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 06:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •