The War on Religion

[KingNothing]

Why do we even have these debates? There are those who will never believe, and those who do, with varying degrees of confidence. Whats the point in spending hours debating someone who will never change their mind?

There are those of us who have REALLY experienced God and KNOW that he in fact exists, despite all the people saying otherwise. The truth of what I know and have experienced will never be erased because some person on the internet told me its not so.

Then there are some who have not allowed God to speak to them, and have never experienced the grace and power of of God - and will never believe that a higher power exists. There even even those who just like to ridicule the faith that others believe, because it makes them feel all big and tough.

"If it turns out that there IS a God, I don't think that he's evil. I think that the worst you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."

 

[tttppp]

Okay, but you certainly can't approach it scientifically.

I don't think you get my point, though. Science cannot possibly answer the question of how we got here. Science, by definition, is limited to the natural realm. Otherwise, tell me how it does not commit the fallacy of induction and asserting the consequent. Science does not deal with history because we cannot possibly know all of the conditions throughout history in order to observe, test, and verify what we think happened.

If science proved whether our universe is infinite or finite, that could tell us a lot how we got here.

 

[1stAmendguy]

The evolution of human consciousness...


"Human beings undergo psychological development. At each level or stage of development, they will see the world in a different way. The lower stages are more fundamental and the higher stages are more significant, but leave out any one of them and you're in trouble...

Put bluntly, there is an archaic God, a magic God, a mythic God, a mental God, and an integral God. Which God do you believe in?
An archaic God sees divinity in any strong instinctual force. A magic God locates divine power in the human ego and its magical capacity to change the animistic world with rituals and spells. A mythic God is located not on this earth but in a heavenly paradise not of this world, entrance to which is gained by living according to the covenants and rules given by this God to his peoples. A mental God is a rational God, a demythologized Ground of Being that underlies all forms of existence. And an integral God is one that embraces all of the above.
Which of those Gods is the most important? According to an integral view, all of them, because each "higher" stage actually builds upon and includes the lower, so the lower stages are more fundamental and the higher stages are more significant, but leave out any one of them and you're in trouble. You are, that is, less than integral, less than comprehensive, less than inclusive in your understanding of God." - KW

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not sure if you're serious or not, because this is historical fact. There's no point even debating it. Just do a freaking Google search.

Lol.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, a rationalist does indeed hold moral principles which are not dependent on context, but recognizes that these principles depend on intersubjective judgments, not received from some impersonal, 'objective' higher source like your divine command beliefs.

Intersubjective judgments being what? Logical axioms translating into moral imperatives? If that's what you're saying, logic cannot determine morality. They are completely separate from one another.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I only like the Old Testament of the Bible. It's filled with more hilarious stupidity. The New Testament that you Jesus Freaks Out In the Streets subscribe to isn't nearly as ridiculous.

And as far as morality and objectivity vs subjectivity goes:

You don't understand the Old Testament. Every atheist likes to make fun of it when they don't even know what it means. As for your video, I went over how just as much evidence is needed to believe in no God as is needed to believe in God. Both accounts of the origins are supernatural. Either everything poofed out of nothing, or God made it poof out of nothing. Both are just as logically sound hypotheses, so atheism cannot be a default position because it is just as supernatural as theism.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If science proved whether our universe is infinite or finite, that could tell us a lot how we got here.

But it can never prove anything. Science cannot determine history because there is no way we can observe or test history, and therefore, we cannot experimentally repeat it. We can never know all of the conditions that have existed, so making any claim about natural history as truth is logically flawed.

I have said this over and over and over and over and people never seem to get it. They just keep repeating what they said before with no evidence or reasoning.

 

[tttppp]

But it can never prove anything. Science cannot determine history because there is no way we can observe or test history, and therefore, we cannot experimentally repeat it. We can never know all of the conditions that have existed, so making any claim about natural history as truth is logically flawed.

I have said this over and over and over and over and people never seem to get it. They just keep repeating what they said before with no evidence or reasoning.

Once technology is advanced enough, they could in theory, see the end of the universe if it was finite. I already have once theory on how the universe could be infinite. If it was proofed, that could prove the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite that would tell us everything you need to know about history. I don't see how this is a lack of reasoning.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Once technology is advanced enough, they could in theory, see the end of the universe if it was finite. I already have once theory on how the universe could be infinite. If it was proofed, that could prove the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite that would tell us everything you need to know about history. I don't see how this is a lack of reasoning.

How would it tell you everything about history? How does that simple fact say everything that ever happened and all the conditions of the past that led to this point?

 

[VIDEODROME]

You don't understand the Old Testament. Every atheist likes to make fun of it when they don't even know what it means. As for your video, I went over how just as much evidence is needed to believe in no God as is needed to believe in God. Both accounts of the origins are supernatural. Either everything poofed out of nothing, or God made it poof out of nothing. Both are just as logically sound hypotheses, so atheism cannot be a default position because it is just as supernatural as theism.

Introducing a creator adds even more questions. What is the nature of this God being and where did it come from? Did some thing else create God?

As for the other argument, it's been mentioned that Matter and Anti-matter combined will release energy while annihilating each other. So in a flash matter is traded for nothingness. So is it possible for that process to reverse? Can "Nothingness" give rise to a pair of Matter and Anti-matter particles?

 

[Elfshadow]

But it can never prove anything. Science cannot determine history because there is no way we can observe or test history, and therefore, we cannot experimentally repeat it. We can never know all of the conditions that have existed, so making any claim about natural history as truth is logically flawed.

I have said this over and over and over and over and people never seem to get it. They just keep repeating what they said before with no evidence or reasoning.

I don't really give a damn about peoples beliefs but this sounds exactly the same as a liberal screaming that about socialism/communism.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Introducing a creator adds even more questions. What is the nature of this God being and where did it come from? Did some thing else create God?

As for the other argument, it's been mentioned that Matter and Anti-matter combined will release energy while annihilating each other. So in a flash matter is traded for nothingness. So is it possible for that process to reverse? Can "Nothingness" give rise to a pair of Matter and Anti-matter particles?

Not necessarily, however, that still doesn't answer the question of where matter came from. The nexus of the whole issue is that there had to have been a beginning. If, indeed, there was a beginning, then there must have been a first event. This is true whether or not you believe the universe has existed infinitely, which is a flawed concept in and of itself. If there was a first event, what caused it? Where did the energy come from, where did the matter come from? These questions are not solved by the concept of anti-matter in any way, shape, or form. There is also the question of where the laws came from, and who made them?

As for the nature of God, it is that He is infinite. He is without a beginning or end, unlike the universe. God did not need to be created since He is the very fabric of existence of the universe, not some finite bearded "man in the sky" as many atheists so foolishly try to portray Him.

By the way, I don't need to "introduce" a creator. No God is not the default position. The universe cannot be a natural phenomenon because, remember, there was no "nature" in the beginning, so that means even the concept of the universe creating itself is just as supernatural as divine creation, if not more, considering all the questions it leaves. However, you are right that a creator does add questions, namely: Who was He? Why did He create us? What does He want us to do?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't really give a damn about peoples beliefs but this sounds exactly the same as a liberal screaming that about socialism/communism.

I really don't get your analogy to liberals and communism. It has no relevance to whether or not science can determine the truth of historical events. It can't, as I have clearly demonstrated.

 

[Elfshadow]

Not necessarily, however, that still doesn't answer the question of where matter came from. The nexus of the whole issue is that there had to have been a beginning. If, indeed, there was a beginning, then there must have been a first event. This is true whether or not you believe the universe has existed infinitely, which is a flawed concept in and of itself. If there was a first event, what caused it? Where did the energy come from, where did the matter come from? These questions are not solved by the concept of anti-matter in any way, shape, or form. There is also the question of where the laws came from, and who made them?

As for the nature of God, it is that He is infinite. He is without a beginning or end, unlike the universe. God did not need to be created since He is the very fabric of existence of the universe, not some finite bearded "man in the sky" as many atheists so foolishly try to portray Him.

By the way, I don't need to "introduce" a creator. No God is not the default position. The universe cannot be a natural phenomenon because, remember, there was no "nature" in the beginning, so that means even the concept of the universe creating itself is just as supernatural as divine creation, if not more, considering all the questions it leaves. However, you are right that a creator does add questions, namely: Who was He? Why did He create us? What does He want us to do?

Sorry but if your telling him that his argument is flawed because he can't explain where the universe came from, while saying that god is infinite thus does not need to be explained its very hypocritical of you. If the universe needs a first event so does your god.

 

[Elfshadow]

I really don't get your analogy to liberals and communism. It has no relevance to whether or not science can determine the truth of historical events. It can't, as I have clearly demonstrated.

Not that part. The part where you start babling that you keep on showing people the correct ways of thinking but they just don't get it.

 

[matt0611]

Sorry but if your telling him that his argument is flawed because he can't explain where the universe came from, while saying that god is infinite thus does not need to be explained its very hypocritical of you. If the universe needs a first event so does your god.

Something uncreated that is outside time and space and nature itself and is eternal does not need a creator. Something that has the very power of "being" within itself. That's the point.

God's personal name is "I AM".

 

[1stAmendguy]

Not necessarily, however, that still doesn't answer the question of where matter came from. The nexus of the whole issue is that there had to have been a beginning. If, indeed, there was a beginning, then there must have been a first event. This is true whether or not you believe the universe has existed infinitely, which is a flawed concept in and of itself. If there was a first event, what caused it? Where did the energy come from, where did the matter come from? These questions are not solved by the concept of anti-matter in any way, shape, or form. There is also the question of where the laws came from, and who made them?

As for the nature of God, it is that He is infinite. He is without a beginning or end, unlike the universe. God did not need to be created since He is the very fabric of existence of the universe, not some finite bearded "man in the sky" as many atheists so foolishly try to portray Him.

By the way, I don't need to "introduce" a creator. No God is not the default position. The universe cannot be a natural phenomenon because, remember, there was no "nature" in the beginning, so that means even the concept of the universe creating itself is just as supernatural as divine creation, if not more, considering all the questions it leaves. However, you are right that a creator does add questions, namely: Who was He? Why did He create us? What does He want us to do?

If nothing can move itself, how was God able to move himself? What is the source of his or its energy. Aquinas doesn't address the notion of being adequately. Heidegger said it best - Christian theology, when dealing with our ultimate concern, presupposes in every sentence the structure of being, its categories (existentialia), laws and concepts. Christian theology, therefore, cannot escape the question of being any more easily than can philosophy. The attempt of Biblicism to avoid non-biblical, ontological terms is doomed to failure as surely as the corresponding philosophical attempts.

 

[Elfshadow]

Something uncreated that is outside time and space and nature itself and is eternal does not need a creator. Something that has the very power of "being" within itself. That's the point.

God's personal name is "I AM".

So what you're saying is that every god that everyone has ever thought up is real?

 

[1stAmendguy]

So what you're saying is that every god that everyone has ever thought up is real?

He's commiting the special pleading fallacy.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Sorry but if your telling him that his argument is flawed because he can't explain where the universe came from, while saying that god is infinite thus does not need to be explained its very hypocritical of you. If the universe needs a first event so does your god.

That's not true. The universe is demonstrably finite by nature. God is not.