Originally posted by Nosrac
I know what you are saying, and I apologize to those who are irritated.
However, there are those (among you) who have commented to me on how
great a job I am doing. So I must be have some impact on this thread...
otherwise you wouldn't read it at all. I pray that the Holy Spirit guides my words
to reach other people. I've had many conversations ...[text shortened]... an responded: 'Satan knows Jesus, Are you a Christian?'
Think on those words my friend.
Listen, I have nothing against you and quite frankly you aren't nearly as annoying as Stang was. I'm sorry if my message came off sounding unnecessarily harsh. I'd like to say it was unintentional but sadly, it was not.
I guess I just don't understand your position at all; your words and attitude remind me so much of what turns me off about Christianity. I grew up in the Church and took all this stuff quite seriously all through high school and even now have a good relationship with God and consider myself to be very much a Christian. I'm sorry to say this but when I see Christians behaving like you do it makes me embarrassed. Your idea of a cogent argument is woefully inadequate for even the most trivial of topics and your constant urging that everyone should read this or that section of the Bible is pointless.
Again, I don't want to upset you but somebody needs to say something because you are making an arse of yourself and it is unkind of us to let it continue without letting you know.
I respect your desire to share your faith, I really do. However, your approach really needs some work. An internet chat forum is hardly the best place to attempt to lead people to Christ but for all I know you live in the arctic and have no other opportunity to engage real people. If you do live in a regularly populated area you should *really* consider moving your ministry outside...everything seems more sincere in person. If the internet is truly your only option then you need to adopt a better strategy because the broken record routine combined with a vaguely threatening attitude is pretty f'd up.
I know that in my own life developing a relationship with people before hitting them with the gospel has been a reasonably effective approach. I think people are more likely to be receptive to what you have to say if you prove yourself to be of more substance than you have so far. I suggest you pray about it and see if God does not lead you to change your strategy so that he can effect positive change in more people through your efforts.
Peace.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperExcellent post.
Listen, I have nothing against you and quite frankly you aren't nearly as annoying as Stang was. I'm sorry if my message came off sounding unnecessarily harsh. I'd like to say it was unintentional but sadly, it was not.
I guess I just don't understand your position at all; your words and attitude remind me so much of what turns me off about Chris ...[text shortened]... e can effect positive change in more people through your efforts.
Peace.
TheSkipper
Because of his hectoring tone I'va always assumed Nosrac to be a vacuous inadequate person who fends off his own insecurity by shouting his 'faith' at others.
Nosrac,
*spend more time playing chess it exersises the mind.
*spend more time in contemplation it clears the mind.
*spend more time talking with people, learn about other people and their opinions
Then come back and argue
Listen I'm laying this down for all of you.
1) yes to read the bible literaly is ridiculous but you have to change wording for civilizations that won't understand the concept you try to give for thousands of years.
2) science is an attempt to explain the physical universe and put logic, boundarys, and such to it. For mankind to attempt such a thing I applaud them. They have mostly gotten it right. There new string theory is a bit sketchy but It could be true (I haven't had much chance to look into it.).
3) SCIENCE IS NOT FAITH!!! get this through any religous conceptions you may hold. By taking multiple physical laws and applying them to evidence to determine what is certain and using only that information to make theorys, formulas, and etc. This doesn't invlove fatih, no thing can be uncertain when making claims, to do such we would be shamefull unless you delibrately state that you take this on at least some faith or chance.
4) Evolution as it is is completely backed by solid evidence with more being more being found each year. Evolution has already been proven and has multiple evidence items to back it.
5) any skeptists out there I DARE YOU TO LOOK INTO EVOLUTION. Talk to multiple scientists whether it be your high school teacher, a college proffesor, or many others. Browse the internet, read books on it. Look into any information you find.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
All things just the same, there is absolutely nothing to support or even suggest that our universe is one of a series of endless waves.
Um. With respect to waves of universe, I used the term speculation. I said that any
reasonable person must remain agnostic on the issue.
The conclusion to which I was referring was in the previous sentence: matter(/energy) is eternal.
The so-called scientists with pre-suppositions are merely changing the camera to accomodate their view. Only now, the camera is pointed toward pure speculation. But speculate they must, for to allow the gathered information to speak for itself at this point would be disasterous to their tightly-held model.
These sentences refer to the speculation. Scientists can speculate as much as they want. But if
they should teach that it is true, I'll be as opposed to them as I am to Intelligent Design. Hence,
my point that science is (as they ought to be) agnostic on the issue of what happened before the
Big Bang. However, that they have discerned that matter is eternal and taken and rightly
held this position is certainly not to their discredit, just like abandoning the idea that the man
plants the (whole) seed in the woman's womb (as a vessel).
That science is constantly realigning its view is no wonder: the entire field is based upon man's observations. If our view hadn't changed since the dawn of recorded time, I'd think something was wrong. However, as we have seen in too many historical examples, when a group of people insists on toeing the company line in spite of evidence to the contrary in order to maintain control, only harm can come.
There is no evidence (as you have discovered, I'm sure) that matter/energy isn't eternal. If there
were, then the above comments would make sense.
We see it in the RCC throughout the Dark Ages and we rightly cluck our tongues. We see it today in the agenda-burdened evolutionist and imagine there is still some doubt as to the truth.
Again, putting off today what cannot be paid tomorrow. There isn't a shred of evidence to even suggest such a position.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest this isn't the position, either. Hence agnosticism
about the issue is the only right and logical position. However, if people want to write science
fiction books about it, then go right ahead. However, you will not find anyone teaching this as
scientific 'doctrine' anywhere.
Worse yet, it simply attributes to matter what God has said are attributes of His.
Here you go again. You are attributing to God those attributes said to be of matter.
Thus the real quandry. If there be no personal, creating God--- as the anti-theist insists--- then there can be no such thing as reason. There certainly does not exist purpose, instead, there is 'just is.' In such a state of non-purpose, there is no sense of obligation, and the anti-theist is left in the same state as was asserted several pages back: no reason, no purpose, no hope to life.
I'd like to see the sketch of your argument where the absence of a personal, creating God
necessarily entails that reason does not exist. You make this bald assertion, but you haven't
demonstrated it.
We are merely plankton on the crest of yet another meaningless wave of eternal matter.
Maybe. I hope not. But as I have no control over the situation, I'm not going to worry about it.
I will continue my faith life and scientific life and my creative life and find out (or not!) upon my
expiring. Unlike you, who clearly fight with both science and theology to make it conform to your
bizarre a priori assumptions, the facets of my life are in harmony, each one nourishing the
other. And so, I will continue to talk with that which I suppose to be the Divine, I will continue to
do what I suppose is the Divine Will, I will continue to do the work that I do, the study that I
undertake, the honing of skills that I engage in. I will continue to wrestle with the evils and
injustices of the world in the small way that I can.
And you will continue to be in conflict with yourself, living in fear and at times contempt of Truth,
which is a deep tragedy.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioHere here for that las bit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]All things just the same, there is absolutely nothing to support or even suggest that our universe is one of a series of endless waves.
Um. With respect to waves of universe, I used the term speculation. I said that any
reasonable person must remain agnostic on the issue.
The conclusion t ...[text shortened]... ng in fear and at times contempt of Truth,
which is a deep tragedy.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioI would like to know what you mean by eternal. Do you mean throughout all time? Do you mean there is something external to the universe containing matter and a time dimention?
The conclusion to which I was referring was in the previous sentence: matter(/energy) is eternal.
The concept of God requires that there be a dimension external to the observable universe which is quite unlike the dimensions of time and space. It does however require that this external dimention is able to interact with the observable universe.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClearly reason did not spring from chance.
[b]Why cant the universe 'just be'.
Actually, we are progressing from just that position. Clearly reason did not spring from chance. If chance cannot produce reason, then in the anti-theist worldview, reason does not exist. If no reason, then gone are the dependent aspects, such as purpose and meaning.
One could say they will create their own me ...[text shortened]... ther man's poison, and value cannot be determined: it's all the same, neither evil or good.[/b]
I don’t understand this sentence—by “reason” do you mean mental capability, or are you talking about the principle of sufficient reason? (For the time being, I’ll assume the latter—as well as our ability to reason about it 🙂 .)
One could say they will create their own meaning, but that meaning itself is meaningless without a point of reference.
People who create their own meaning take the conditions of their own existence (and whatever philosophical conclusions they derive therefrom) as the point of reference. There is no need to admit a supernatural point of reference.
One could as well say that meaning derived from the existence of God is meaningless if there is no God, and say no more nor less than you have.
I do not conflate terms like “purpose” and “meaning.” It seems clear that beings (with or without self-reflective consciousness) can act purposefully (though that may be a loaded word).
_________________________________
It seems as if you are trying to argue with all this something like the following:*
(1) A totally chaotic, disordered and random universe cannot exist.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) There must be a reason for the existence of such a universe.
(3a) Such reason must be accessible to our cognitive capabilities (implicitly, or else the chain of inference just stops here).
(4) Such a reason cannot be located within the universe itself.
(5) Therefore, there is a supernatural-something (God) that provides sufficient reason for the universe to exist.
Then, since a sufficient reason cannot be derived from the universe itself [premise (4)], there must be some “divine revelation” (that is also accessible to our cognitive architecture) to communicate such.
Now, I’ll grant premises (1) and (2), with the reservation that I am uncomfortable talking about the universe-itself as some kind of entity, as opposed to simply the label for all the “stuff,” forces, processes and their relationships that constitute what we call the universe or the cosmos or the natural order. (That is, I am uncomfortable treating the universe as if it were like a jar containing bugs.)
I’ll for the time being grant premise (3), only because I don’t know enough about the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) to know whether or not there is a good critique.
I see no reason at all to grant premise (3a), except for the sake of argument.
I see no reason to grant premise (4) at all. However, if (4) is granted, then the inference becomes tautological and begs the question.
____________________________
What all this boils down to—referring back to my statement about meaning derived from God—is that the theist has no better “point of reference” from which decide for God, than the existentialist, say, has for deciding issues of meaning and value. You have to bite the bullet somewhere and make an initial assumptive (axiomatic) decision; basically, you can start with the existence of God, or you can start with divine revelation, but not both.
* If I have set up a strawman of your position with this inference, please correct me—I just didn’t want to lob back and forth a bunch of Q&A to get to the meat of the argument.
If your argument is simply that concepts like value, purpose and meaning would be better grounded if there were a God—which says nothing about the grounding for a belief in God—then I would have to say that that might simply be one of the exigencies of our existence that we have to deal with as best we can. One way, of course, is to assume God.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am afraid I do not understand what you are asking.
I would like to know what you mean by eternal. Do you mean throughout all time? Do you mean there is something external to the universe containing matter and a time dimention?
The concept of God requires that there be a dimension external to the observable universe which is quite unlike the dimensions of time and space. It does however require that this external dimention is able to interact with the observable universe.
Originally posted by NemesioThis is precisely where you (and others here) can help me. Perhaps if we remain steadfast with our gaze upon the 'knowns,' that fear and contempt of which you speak will dissapate as the piercing rays of logic come shining into my darkened mind.
And you will continue to be in conflict with yourself, living in fear and at times contempt of Truth, which is a deep tragedy.
Nemesio
Knowns, and only knowns. Agreed?
Would you agree that causation of and within the universe is strictly mechanistic?
Originally posted by vistesdI'm going to approach the summit from a different path. If, at the end, my answers are not satisfactory, I'll attempt to answer the questions you raise here separately.
Clearly reason did not spring from chance.
I don’t understand this sentence—by “reason” do you mean mental capability, or are you talking about the principle of sufficient reason? (For the time being, I’ll assume the latter—as well as our ability to reason about it 🙂 .)
One could say they will create their own meaning, but that meaning itself ...[text shortened]... f our existence that we have to deal with as best we can. One way, of course, is to assume God.