3 edits
@kellyjay saidWe have gone over this before in many other threads. You present a false dichotomy. There are several options, not only two. In point of fact, we do not know how something can come from something, we never actually see causality. What we see is one event, and then another event, but we never see causality itself. So it is quite possible that something could come from nothing. Furthermore, what you propose is everything coming into existence ex nihilo, from nothing, because God utters magic words, let there be light. Harry Potter stuff. This explains a mystery by an even bigger mystery, which explains nothing at all. The assumption that the universe had a first cause is nothing we can verify; it’s just an assumption. A first cause, if there was one, need not have been intentional or intelligent; all that’s required is an ignition, a match, a spark, some other mindless force like gravity or electromagnetism. Oh, but you don’t believe in gravity, do you ? Yet you believe in Nobodaddy, a great big tooth fairy in the sky. Personally, I find the Buddhist position eminently plausible: the beginning of the universe is undefined, like division by zero; the concepts of having a beginning and causality apply only to events within the universe, not to the universe as a whole. The Gnostics believed that the universe was created by a lesser demi-urge, not the Supreme God, and that he made a hash of it. So there you are, a multitude of alternate answers, in reply to your false dichotomy.
It is a binary choice, yes, or no, the correct answer would be a fact if we agreed with it or not. We know a thing cannot create itself out of nothing, because there is nothing in nothing to create itself. So whatever created/started the universe cannot be the universe or something that has its full being beginning and ending in the universe. You are dodging something that does not leave much wiggle room to dodge, only ignore.
For the umpteenth time, a first cause, even supposing there was one, is not by definition identical with the God of Abraham—for that conclusion, you would need a separate argument and some extraordinarily compelling evidence, which you haven’t presented.
The story in Genesis is not original to the Hebrews. It was lifted from the Babylonian myth of Enuma Elish, and the Babylonians did not believe in Yahweh, THEY believed in Marduk. For Pete's sake, man! Do some historical research and find out how your Bible actually came to be!
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc_genesis.pdf
1 edit
@pettytalk saidI would disagree with you, there is nothing we can do to "find God..." it is God who finds us. We can no more think our way to God than we can earn our way, which is why God reached down to us.
I selected this at random. " Why wouldn't such a God want people to come to him because they are convinced intellectually, based on evidence?"
Possibly because this God put a governor on man's intellectualism, and this governor is preventing the mind's motor from reaching the necessary revolutions that will provide the necessary speed for escaping earthly physical materi ...[text shortened]... hristianity.
God, I'm told, can also be reached by coincidences.....a string of them, of course.
@moonbus saidInteresting that you spout off words like "false dichotomy" as you know what a true one was when you have no idea and have said so numerous times, it only a speculation to you, never mind that a speculation is just our musing about something, but the something is not us, it is what we are thinking about.
We have gone over this before in many other threads. You present a false dichotomy. There are several options, not only two. In point of fact, we do not know how something can come from something, we never actually see causality. What we see is one event, and then another event, but we never see causality itself. So it is quite possible that something could come from nothing. ...[text shortened]... y came to be!
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc_genesis.pdf
You define what God must be like and not like, as if you know, you make comparisons to gods that are not comparable to the One God and think you are scoring points that you can only give as speculative. You do not apply logic you only apply denial.
@moonbus said"Oh, but you don’t believe in gravity, do you ?"
We have gone over this before in many other threads. You present a false dichotomy. There are several options, not only two. In point of fact, we do not know how something can come from something, we never actually see causality. What we see is one event, and then another event, but we never see causality itself. So it is quite possible that something could come from nothing. ...[text shortened]... y came to be!
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc_genesis.pdf
You must read Dive's writing, why would you say such a thing? Can you give me a reason for such a statement from something I said? I have said that we know about gravity's effects, but we do not know what it is. Exactly how do you translate that into not believing in gravity? I have said that science shows us nothing but effects which we can study, it cannot go beyond that.
God who can speak things into existence does not owe His being to anyone or anything else, all comes from Him, the bottom line is that the truth of it all belongs to God. You cannot justify any other narrative only throw out possible denials.
4 edits
@kellyjay saidThis is a truth statement you simply can't make. You believing it to be true doesn't make it so. That is the bottom line.
God who can speak things into existence does not owe His being to anyone or anything else, all comes from Him, the bottom line is that the truth of it all belongs to God. You cannot justify any other narrative only throw out possible denials.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
You would be the first to object if I asserted that everything comes from an eternal universe and that was the bottom line and that you cannot justify any other narrative only throw out possible denials.
Edit: I really wish you would take time to fully ponder and absorb that last sentence.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidOh please you just destroyed every single truth claim there is with that statement, if you really believed that why correct anyone if their version of truth is different from yours? Truth is real and we can know it, this is a true statement. To say truth isn’t real and we can not know it is a truth statement that contradicts itself.
This is a truth statement you simply can't make. You believing it to be true doesn't make it so. That is the bottom line.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
You would be the first to object if I asserted that everything comes from an eternal universe and that was the bottom line and that you cannot justify any other narrative only throw out possible denials.
Edit: I really wish you would take time to fully ponder and absorb that last sentence.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe thing about truth is it has a unique quality that errors don’t have so comparing possibilities with each other and sorting through them to see which possibilities are the most reasonable ones we do on a daily basis with everything. Not wanting to know will give people the reason to suppress the truth but having a reason to believe is definitely a good thing as opposed to ignoring the question out of hand just because.
This is a truth statement you simply can't make. You believing it to be true doesn't make it so. That is the bottom line.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
You would be the first to object if I asserted that everything comes from an eternal universe and that was the bottom line and that you cannot justify any other narrative only throw out possible denials.
Edit: I really wish you would take time to fully ponder and absorb that last sentence.
@kellyjay said'Your' starting default point, your bottom line, is that God exists.
Oh please you just destroyed every single truth claim there is with that statement, if you really believed that why correct anyone if their version of truth is different from yours? Truth is real and we can know it, this is a true statement. To say truth isn’t real and we can not know it is a truth statement that contradicts itself.
Try to focus on this. I am not saying there is no such thing as truth. What I'm saying is you have no greater claim of knowing what this truth is than anybody else. God existing is 'your' bottom line, not mine.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidFor all you know Kelly, the truth could very well be that there is no God. That could be the truth. You get that right?
The thing about truth is it has a unique quality that errors don’t have so comparing possibilities with each other and sorting through them to see which possibilities are the most reasonable ones we do on a daily basis with everything. Not wanting to know will give people the reason to suppress the truth but having a reason to believe is definitely a good thing as opposed to ignoring the question out of hand just because.
And that being the case, and using your own reasoning, 'You cannot justify any other narrative only throw out possible denials.'
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou have a bottom line he doesn’t so that is the question since it is a binary choice nothing magical about what fits reality better yes or no. It is not much different from a complicated mathematical formula which calculation fits what we see in reality. You IGNORE some of the things we know are part of the equation the beginning which explains why we see what we do now. You want to say your math (truths) don’t require some things to fit your definition or worldview, which is a reasonable explanation of the beginning. Denial is not an argument, it isn’t a justification for a stance, if reasoning doesn’t play a part then you have an unreasonable position.
'Your' starting default point, your bottom line, is that God exists.
Try to focus on this. I am not saying there is no such thing as truth. What I'm saying is you have no greater claim of knowing what this truth is than anybody else. God existing is 'your' bottom line, not mine.
@kellyjay saidIt's as though you have read none of my posts.
You have a bottom line he doesn’t so that is the question since it is a binary choice nothing magical about what fits reality better yes or no. It is not much different from a complicated mathematical formula which calculation fits what we see in reality. You IGNORE some of the things we know are part of the equation the beginning which explains why we see what we do now. ...[text shortened]... justification for a stance, if reasoning doesn’t play a part then you have an unreasonable position.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNot agreeing with you does not mean I didn’t read what you wrote.
It's as though you have read none of my posts.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@kellyjay saidWell, I also disagree to your disagreement. I did a lot to find God, as I picked the shortest straw from a stack, and it was my lot to go and find God. You may not agree, but I really did reach out and found God, the Father.
I would disagree with you, there is nothing we can do to "find God..." it is God who finds us. We can no more think our way to God than we can earn our way, which is why God reached down to us.
I found Him in Plato, as Good as gold; I have a nose for these things, as I'm a Golden Retriever. God gave me a BIG smile and a lollipop to lick on, and then said, Good for you, my child! God is Good to me, I have to say.
God likes to play hide and seek with us, and He's GOOD enough to admit whenever any of His children have found Him out. But to tell all men (children) about this Father of ours is impossible, as many like you will never believe it. You are on par with your brother atheist, when it comes to God, the Father, as you are not a believer. You don't believe me? Then you must be one of those that believes in the Trinity, I take it? Three heads are not better than ONE, when it comes to God, the Father. And wouldn't you know it? That other dog, the three-headed Cerberus, is the one guarding the exit from the underworld. Go figure!
