30 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleOk, got it now. Thanks for your patience with me. 🙄 That makes perfect sense, and I really can't think of anything that I disagree with here.
Dear Lady, you misunderstood everything I said😵
It is obvious that the physical world that surrounds us, our personal inner world and the world of our ideas are existent. These three worlds are different and they interact: the physical world sets the pace to our emotional field and triggers our senses and our emotions, whilst at the same time we act ...[text shortened]... ntion known as morality) of her/ his products (morality in this case).
Is it clear now?
😵
"It is obvious that the physical world that surrounds us, our personal inner world and the world of our ideas are existent. " - I agree with this; but the question still remains, how does the physical world, our personal inner world, and the world of our ideas come into existence, or are those things just existing without need for a cause or beginning..?
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28025
30 Oct 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherYou've walked all the way back to the first cause argument. Use your imagination to do some thought experiments. This question has been asked and answered many, many ways on this planet (a family of gods, a great beast, an empty void, a sacrificed god, and so it goes) - what evidence is there to accept one solution over another? I would ask you a further question - why do you need to believe that you can ever have an answer? The methodology of logic, the phenomenological framework that the beetle detailed - these are tools to accumulate evidence (what is green?) but they are not promises to reveal the ultimate. There is no magic that will suddenly make everyone else in the world say, "Well, the Sharp-one is obviously correct - I will happily abandon how I really feel!" You've stated how you feel and others feel differently. Can you live with that? It doesn't bother me that you see the universe in a different way than I do - you're in a different spot!
Ok, got it now. Thanks for your patience with me. 🙄 That makes perfect sense, and I really can't think of anything that I disagree with here.
[b]"It is obvious that the physical world that surrounds us, our personal inner world and the world of our ideas are existent. " - I agree with this; but the question still remains, how does the physical ...[text shortened]... me into existence, or are those things just existing without need for a cause or beginning..?[/b]
31 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackYes, so that sums up pretty much everything. No one can 'reveal the ultimate'.
You've walked all the way back to the first cause argument. Use your imagination to do some thought experiments. This question has been asked and answered many, many ways on this planet (a family of gods, a great beast, an empty void, a sacrificed god, and so it goes) - what evidence is there to accept one solution over another? I would ask you a further er me that you see the universe in a different way than I do - you're in a different spot!
So at the end of the day everyone just assumes how everything came about, if they feel that everything even needed to come about in the first place.
We're all living in the dark with no ultimate answers; we’re just existing and able to ask questions about our existence.
How has this conclusion ever been good enough for people? It is not good enough for me, and at other times I’m sure that it hasn’t been good enough for you either.
If someone can say that things "just are" then I can also say that God "just is".
But what I don’t understand is how an atheist can say that my “just is” conclusion is any different than his/her “just is” conclusion! Why does the idea of God’s existence strike atheists as being more illogical than the non-existence of God? They can’t give me an ultimate answer of how everything material and immaterial came into existence, so why is it so impossible to think that there must be a God?
I suspect that some people find it easier to not believe in God simply because they can’t handle the accountability that would go along with the existence of God. Everyone wants to be their own god, which was the original sin. So they stop just short of the existence of God, and they end up concluding that everything "just is" and there is no ultimate answer.
But there IS an ultimate answer, and only ONE ultimate answer that I have ever heard of. God is the only ultimate answer. He is the only God that has ever claimed to be the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, and the fact that no one can reason beyond Him is proof that He is the Alpha and Omega, etc etc.
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherYou simply conclude that, since we are for the time being -or even for ever- forced to stop at the point singulatity, you can continue by means of mambo-jumbo! Leaving aside your irrelevant questions about the origins of life, an issue well covered with the theory of the evolution, for the time being we cannot go beyond the veil known as point singularity.
Yes, so that sums up pretty much everything. No one can [b]'reveal the ultimate'.
So at the end of the day everyone just assumes how everything came about, if they feel that everything even needed to come about in the first place.
We're all living in the dark with no ultimate answers; we’re just existing and able to ask questions about our e ...[text shortened]... act that no one can reason beyond Him is proof that He is the Alpha and Omega, etc etc.[/b]
So what?
😵
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28025
31 Oct 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherWe're all living in the dark with no ultimate answers; we’re just existing and able to ask questions about our existence.
Yes, so that sums up pretty much everything. No one can [b]'reveal the ultimate'.
So at the end of the day everyone just assumes how everything came about, if they feel that everything even needed to come about in the first place.
We're all living in the dark with no ultimate answers; we’re just existing and able to ask questions about our e ...[text shortened]... act that no one can reason beyond Him is proof that He is the Alpha and Omega, etc etc.[/b]
Pegged it, Sherlock! You can lie to me, you can lie to yourself because rather than take responsibility for yourself your ego needs to create some outside being that you can project your prejudices onto so you can hold others accountable for your own standards but the simple truth is - I don't believe you! You haven't pulled any rabbits out of any hats! You are just a foolish common mortal like me and your pronouncements carry no weight (with me and at least some others to judge by the responses here.) As long as you're not preaching crusade against us infidels I don't care what you think. Feel how you feel - the rest of us will. "Whatever Gets You Thru The Night" - just don't expect that the same thing will suffice for everyone or that insulting the rest of us will advance your cause - it will have the opposite effect.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherOriginally posted by SharpeMother
Yes, so that sums up pretty much everything. No one can [b]'reveal the ultimate'.
So at the end of the day everyone just assumes how everything came about, if they feel that everything even needed to come about in the first place.
We're all living in the dark with no ultimate answers; we’re just existing and able to ask questions about our e ...[text shortened]... act that no one can reason beyond Him is proof that He is the Alpha and Omega, etc etc.[/b]
But what I don’t understand is how an atheist can say that my “just is” conclusion is any different than his/her “just is” conclusion!
Well those arguments are a bit like, as Paul Davies put it, 'my turtle is better than yours'.
On the other hand, I'm an atheist and my conclusion is that I don't know whether or how the universe 'just is' or whether there is something other than the universe that played some part in bringing about the state of affairs we observe.
So I suppose the main difference between us is that you think you have a handle on all that whereas I don't.
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackWow - I don't see at all where I insulted anyone. You are the only one throwing insults around. You have not shown me any logical or scientific proof that my arguments are wrong. You have only shown me that you are deeply offended by something that I said. However, I had absolutely no intention of offending you. I have personally chosen to believe in God based on the fact that no one can give me an ultimate answer other than the Christian theistic answer. So because I believe in God I must live for Him or else go against my own conscience. If I didn’t use the logic and reason that I believe God gave me to try to present my arguments supporting - if not proving - the existence of God then I am going against my conscience! I am greatly sorry if I offended you, but I did not personally attack you or say anything that you can rebut using logic and reason! According to the Bible and what I have seen of humanity, most people do live for themselves and consciously or subconsciously claim to be god, or like god. Can you rebut this? How is my stating a fact in any way insulting you or even judging you? I suspect that the few or many Christians that you have been in contact with have judged you, and so I don’t blame you for being on the defensive right off the bat, but there is nothing that I said that is imposing my belief system onto you. I’m very sure that you sleep just fine believing what you believe, and I sleep fine believing what I believe. I’m fine with leaving it at that. However, we’re not on this forum to just give cyber hugs and be friends, we’re on here to defend our beliefs! I did so without judgment towards you, but you have not withheld your judgment from me. You have done exactly what you falsely accused me of doing. 😞
[b]We're all living in the dark with no ultimate answers; we’re just existing and able to ask questions about our existence.
Pegged it, Sherlock! You can lie to me, you can lie to yourself because rather than take responsibility for yourself your ego needs to create some outside being that you can project your prejudices onto so you can hold othe ...[text shortened]... hat insulting the rest of us will advance your cause - it will have the opposite effect.[/b]
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by black beetle"Leaving aside your irrelevant questions about the origins of life, an issue well covered with the theory of the evolution..." - it is easy to say that the origins of life are well covered with the theory of evolution, but I have yet to see that statement proven. 😵
You simply conclude that, since we are for the time being -or even for ever- forced to stop at the point singulatity, you can continue by means of mambo-jumbo! Leaving aside your irrelevant questions about the origins of life, an issue well covered with the theory of the evolution, for the time being we cannot go beyond the veil known as point singularity.
So what?
😵
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherOK, Dear Lady. Then take your sweet time, debunk the theory of the evolution and win the Nobel prize, one million dollars and the glory🙂
[b]"Leaving aside your irrelevant questions about the origins of life, an issue well covered with the theory of the evolution..." - it is easy to say that the origins of life are well covered with the theory of evolution, but I have yet to see that statement proven. 😵[/b]
And just a side note regarding your personal "just is" approach: your "just is" is pure out of the blue theology and not a concrete theory, and since it lacks of a solid philosophic and scientific backround is easily dismissed.
The fact that for the time being we have to admit that, according to our current scientific facts and evidence, we simply do not know, means not that one has to accept blindly religious beliefs like the one you expressed. What exactly makes you think that whatever we cannot solve by means of science and philosophy is solvable with theology?
😵
01 Nov 09
To play devil's advocate, let's assume that there is an intelligent creator. What makes a Christian God take precedence over Allah, the many Hindu Gods/Goddesses or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I used a Christian God in this example, because the spirituality forums seem to be mainly dominated by Christians, but in my above example, you can replace Christian God to whatever your personal God happens to be, and why it takes precedence over any other God.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28025
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherI suspect that some people find it easier to not believe in God simply because they can’t handle the accountability that would go along with the existence of God.
Wow - I don't see at all where I insulted anyone. You are the only one throwing insults around. You have not shown me any logical or scientific proof that my arguments are wrong. You have only shown me that you are deeply offended by something that I said. However, I had absolutely no intention of offending you. I have personally chosen to believe in Go ...[text shortened]... withheld your judgment from me. You have done exactly what you falsely accused me of doing. 😞
So, referring to atheists as irresponsible is not an insult - it is just standard christian rhetoric?
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackYou're twisting what I said. I was not referring to atheists specifically or even in general. I was referring to some people who can't handle being accountable (I did not say irresponsible - two completely different words/meanings) to anyone - even themselves. Some people do not accept the existence of God based solely on the fact that they can't face themselves. God has a standard of absolute perfection, so of course it is daunting to think about holding ourselves to that standard. I did not say one word about that being plausible or necessary. From what the Bible says God is not willing to accept works from mankind, which is why He sent His Son to die so that we wouldn't have to do good and meet His standard of perfection. His Son already reached that standard for us. There is no reason for atheists or any other group of people to be afraid of the "implications" of believing in a God, simply because there aren't any. I guess I should have phrased it ”I suspect that some people find it easier to not believe in God simply because they can’t handle the assumed accountability that would go along with the existence of God.” There are no hoops to jump through or strings attached. God died for the unrighteous, not for the people who think they've arrived and are perfect. All we have to do is trust that God will accept Christ's perfection in place of our imperfection and we are saved.
[b]I suspect that some people find it easier to not believe in God simply because they can’t handle the accountability that would go along with the existence of God.
So, referring to atheists as irresponsible is not an insult - it is just standard christian rhetoric?[/b]
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherBut that is not an ultimate answer, you have said so yourself a number of times. You have stated that God just is. One of the clever things that Christian Theology (or rather Jewish theology) manages to do is to sound sophisticated and sound like it is answering fundamental questions without actually ever doing so.
I have personally chosen to believe in God based on the fact that no one can give me an ultimate answer other than the Christian theistic answer.
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherThe implications of believing or not believing in the so called "god" are great, because this specific human invention is able to turn our attitude upside down.
You're twisting what I said. I was not referring to atheists specifically or even in general. I was referring to some people who can't handle being accountable (I did not say irresponsible - two completely different words/meanings) to anyone - even themselves. Some people do not accept the existence of God based solely on the fact that the ...[text shortened]... that God will accept Christ's perfection in place of our imperfection and we are saved.
If you ever tried to read some theories and proposals by reputable physicists that are published in peer-reviewed journals, you would see that the formation of the universe by natural means from an initial state of chaos/ "nothingness" is quite probable. The fact that these theories cannot be proven because for the time being there are not further pieces of information available, means not that we have to dismiss them, for they are all consistent with our existing knowledge and they do not violate known laws of physics -and so I cannot discard them.
However, the story proposed by the Bible is not consistent with our knowledge, it violates known laws of physics and it adds an agent that is not necessary for the existence of the universe and life -and so I discard it.
Now, in your opinion, can I face myself or I cannot? Can I handle being accountable to anyone and to myself or I cannot? Do I find it easier to not believe in God simply because I cannot handle the assumed accountability that would go along with the existence of God or, since I estimate that I have to evaluate everything according to my intelligence, I discard this religious belief as an out of the blue myth?
😵
03 Nov 09
Originally posted by SharpeMotherAnd I suspect that some people find it easier to believe in God simply because they no longer need to be accountable for their own actions. I have found many Christians (not all) do not take accountability for their actions but rather either claim that they no longer matter (as per your 'saved' argument), or that some other entity is to blame (the Devil, demons etc). I have only once heard the the same regarding credit worthy actions - knightmeister claims that he is only partially responsible for his good actions and gives most of the credit to God.
All we have to do is trust that God will accept Christ's perfection in place of our imperfection and we are saved.
I for one am certainly not afraid of believing in God (for fear of accountability) and my reason for not believing in God is purely an evidential one ie I see no evidence for his existence.