Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[ClayTrainor]

"The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions." - Carl Sagan

 

[low preference guy]

Science can never find the spirit or soul of something, because these are outside the realms of spacetime.

Whatever is "outside the realm of spacetime" is outside the realm of existence.

 

[TER]

Whatever is "outside the realm of spacetime" is outside the realm of existence.

Which is why the more deeper theologians and saints of the Church, like St. Maximos, do not say that 'God exists', as existence is attributed to created things. God, Who by definition is beyond creation, cannot, by rigorous examination, be said to 'exist'. While we usually say 'God exists' as a short handed expression, the correct way to say it would be closer to 'I believe in the God Who is'.

It is important also to remember that existence does not just apply to thingness but rather the what and the why of something. i.e. nothing exists in itself.

 

[Bman]

It's this simple people. There is no need for a reason when something has always been. Even if you accept the notion that there was a big bang, you must then accept the notion that it wasn't the first. In fact there never was a first.

Why "is" something that has always been? It just is, is as close to answering that question that anyone will get. If you wish to pray to the sun, to something you cannot see, to something people wrote about in books by all means go ahead, but thinking there has to be a reason to infinity is only asking a question you will never comprehend.

 

[TER]

It's this simple people. There is no need for a reason when something has always been. Even if you accept the notion that there was a big bang, you must then accept the notion that it wasn't the first. In fact there never was a first.

Why "is" something that has always been? It just is, is as close to answering that question that anyone will get. If you wish to pray to the sun, to something you cannot see, to something people wrote about in books by all means go ahead, but thinking there has to be a reason to infinity is only asking a question you will never comprehend.

This is a good example as to why it is actually false to say 'God exists' instead of 'God Who is' (the 'I AM'), Who has no beginning nor cause, but is the beginning and cause for all that exists.

 

[Bman]

This is a good example as to why it is actually false to say 'God exists', rather than, 'God Who is', the 'I AM', which has no beginning nor cause, but the beginning and cause for all that exists.

I just look at the Law of thermodynamics. It's quite simple understanding this law that all that exists always has, just not in the way we see it today. I hold that there was no creation only a changing of states of existence.

 

[TER]

I just look at the Law of thermodynamics. It's quite simple understanding this law that all that exists always has, just not in the way we see it today. I hold that there was no creation only a changing of states of existence.

The laws of thermodynamics fall apart as you approach the Big Bang (or the moment of creation, whatever one wishes to call it), which is why science is left with a big question mark as to what caused it (or as the believer would say, Who caused it!)

 

[Theocrat]

"God Is" Implies Existence

Which is why the more deeper theologians and saints of the Church, like St. Maximos, do not say that 'God exists', as existence is attributed to created things. God, Who by definition is beyond creation, cannot, by rigorous examination, be said to 'exist'. While we usually say 'God exists' as a short handed expression, the correct way to say it would be closer to 'I believe in the God Who is'.

It is important also to remember that existence does not just apply to thingness but rather the what and the why of something. i.e. nothing exists in itself.

If God doesn't exist, then how can we know Who He is? After all, I have nothing wrong with saying that God eternally existed because God is infinite, by His own nature.

 

[Bman]

The laws of thermodynamics fall apart as you approach the Big Bang (or the moment of creation, whatever one wishes to call it), which is why science is left with a big question mark as to what caused it (or as the believer would say, Who caused it!)

I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to explain this, but what you are saying is wrong. The whole thing is zero point like magnets. I fear beyond that I'm going to have trouble explaining it.

 

[TER]

If God doesn't exist, then how can we know Who He is? After all, I have nothing wrong with saying that God eternally existed because God is infinite, by His own nature.

Theo, I don't wish to confuse anyone in making my statement above that 'God does not exist'. We say that 'God exists' when trying to describe God in human terms and understanding, as it is much more conductive to conversation and debate to say 'God exists' when trying to relate our belief in the 'I AM'. In such a way, it is not strictly wrong to say it in such a way, as it is the best way we beings, who are created and limited in our created natures, can understand God and can more easily relate to Him.

But there are deeper theological and divine truths which God has revealed to the true theologians (and by true theologians, I am ascribing to those who fulfill such a requirement as being people who pray in truth -of which I confess I do not). These are glimpses of God revealed to His greatest of saints, such as Saint Maximus for one, men and women who have reached depths of the knowledge of God deeper than most people have been able to reach in this world.

These are truths that cannot be attained simply by the mind or the thought of man, but by the divine revelation of God to the nous through pure prayer.

That 'God does not exist' does not mean that there is no God and that He cannot be known, but rather, that he does not 'exist' as we exist or that anything in the created universe exists. Nothing can exist in itself. And that is why the logical progression of cause and effect if one goes back far enough leads to God. God is the 'I AM' in a way that transcends creation and 'existence' as far as created knowledgeable beings can relate to and comprehend. It is not a deficiency in God to say that He 'does not exist' in such a way, but rather it highlights the deficiency in our capability to understand the essence of God.

We must first differentiate the essence of God and the energy of God. God is unknowable in His essence. We created beings cannot understand the essence of God. It is impossible. There is an uncrossable chasm between our essence and of God as He is in His uncreated essence.

We can, however, know God through His energies, which are the natural uncreated energies of His essence. By His energy we can experience and known God and His nature and can partake of His divine nature and become living temples of His Holy Spirit.

 

[TER]

I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to explain this, but what you are saying is wrong. The whole thing is zero point like magnets. I fear beyond that I'm going to have trouble explaining it.

I honestly don't remember much from my days of taking Thermodynamics and Quantum Physics back at the engineering University I attended, but I'm pretty sure I am right in saying that the laws of thermodynamics break down as one approaches the Big Bang. But discoveries are made every day, so perhaps I am wrong. Either way, any new discoveries might answer how the Big Bang happened, but will not answer why the Big Bang happened. Of this, I am convinced!

 

[Bman]

I honestly don't remember much from my days of taking Thermodynamics and Quantum Physics back at the engineering University I attended, but I'm pretty sure I am right in saying that the laws of thermodynamics break down as one approaches the Big Bang. But discoveries are made every day, so perhaps I am wrong. Either way, any new discoveries might answer how the Big Bang happened, but will not answer why the Big Bang happened. Of this, I am convinced!

Well when they talk about thermodynamics that's what they are talking about. Pre-Big Bang the laws of thermodynamics don't need to exist. It's a theory because what they are really trying to do is figure out the question of how and why the singularity took place. How do you start from zero?

 

[low preference guy]

When will TER and Theo decide whether God exists or not?

Or is it that God exists and does NOT exist at the same time?

 

[robert68]

..

 

[ClayTrainor]

Or is it that God exists and does NOT exist at the same time?

 

[low preference guy]

that's how i would feel if i held a mess of contradictory beliefs

 

[sorianofan]

Many in Christ's day believed Him to be the Messiah because He fulfilled the prophecies of the prophets. Many today still convert to Christianity (including Jews) because they see how He fulfilled prophecy. Christ stood before the Jewish leaders in the temple and read from Isaiah and proclaimed that He is the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. The throngs who followed Him, including His disciples who said 'this is the one spoken of by the prophets', believed Him for a host of reasons: because of His words of authority and wisdom, because of His miracles, and because of His fulfillment of the prophecies.

True. But to a Jew, Christ's interpretation is without merit. It would be to them circular logic.

You say in an earlier post that the fulfillment seems fulfilled to the Christian because it is a Christological interpretation, and that Jews and Muslims don't see it as a fulfillment. But you are wrong! They don't believe it not because they don't see it in a Christological light, but because they either reject it all as lies or they ignore or alter it.

Maybe I'm wrong. I was not able to read scripture Christologically until God enabled me to. Aside from an act of grace, I'm not sure how anyone can correctly interpret Scripture.

[R]emoving and altering those prophecies which specifically pointed to Christ. They did this when they rewrote the Hebrew bible into the Masoretic text. This is the version which is unfortunately used by most Western Christians and is the one written HUNDREDS of years after Christ by the Sanhedrin (of all people!). They rejected and condemned the Septuagint (which up until then was an official and accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible, the one most widely spread throughout the world, and the one most quoted by Jesus and the Gospel writers), and they rejected it simply BECAUSE of the prophecies of Christ written in it. You see, so to counter the obvious and apparent fulfillment of prophecies, they opted to simply rewrite it.

Very true, I personally trust the Septuagint with modifications from applicable Dead Sea Scrolls more than the Masoretic text. Paul quoted the Septuagint and being a Pharisee, if he had issues with translation he might have relied upon Hebrew texts.

I mean, the Masoretic text flat out changes the names of individuals (especially in the books of Samuel) in order to make it conform to their worldview.

This is the only way they could counter the prophecies.

Maybe I don't have a very good understanding of prophecy. I can't get my head around how it can be used to convince the non-Christian.

 

[TER]

Maybe I don't have a very good understanding of prophecy. I can't get my head around how it can be used to convince the non-Christian.

And I can't get my head around how it cannot be used to convince the non-Christian.

 

[robert68]

And I can't get my head around how it cannot be used to convince the non-Christian.

Prophecy and the necessary role of Judas Iscariot are at odds with free will, and you have previously claimed to believe in free will.

 

[TER]

Prophecy and the necessary role of Judas Iscariot are at odds with free will.

How so?