3 Reasons Why Theism is Wrong.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve got news for you: these questions are not going be resolved on a bodybuilding forum. The fact that I don’t have a phd in neuroscience and cannot explain the origin of human consciousness does not mean that your book of ancient fairy tales is correct. I can’t explain how a computer works either…doesn’t mean I think Jesus lives inside the shiny box and makes the internet pages appear with God-magic.

Look I try to be respectful most of the time but in the interest of honesty I’m going to be frank. You have the mentality and naivete of a child. You dedicate a a substantial amount of your time (and I’m going to assume money as well) to following and defending a primitive mythology. A third-century middle-eastern shepherd can be excused for being stupid and needy enough to devote himself to Christianity (of Judaism or Islam or Zoroastrianism etc). An adult living in the industrialized West cannot. Biblical literalism is entirely dead. It has been killed a hundred million times over by centuries-worth of philosophers and scientists, all of whom are smarter than you. What does that leave you with? A book of metaphorical parables? In what way is that different from Aesop’s fables? Or Winnie the fucking Pooh?

Someone brought up the proof from cosmology. There is room for that kind of a discussion in the modern world–the great existential questions have not yet been answered (though they probably never will be). But stories in a book that was written by men thousands of years ago? Many of which are literally nothing more than recycled pagan fairy tales? If a supreme being is responsible for the existence of matter–and that is an unresolved philosophical question–how can you be so fucking arrogant to think that you know His most intimate wishes? What hubris men are capable of!

I sometimes hope that, for one instant just before your descent into the unending nothingness of death, you devout will realize that the storybook pearl gates of heaven do not and have not ever existed; that the philosophy with which you wasted your only single shot at existence is nothing more than a colossal sham; that gone forever are your miserable lives spent in exhausted devotion to the laughably anachronistic demands of a childish fairy-tale deity.

That is going to be one hell of a last thought.[/quote]

I get your thoughts…I happen to hold that book of fairy tales in high regard, but I know better then to beat an unbeleiver over the head with it. One has to believe in God before a book about God makes any sense…
Anyhow, the book isn’t recycled pagan stories, the similarities are purely coinsidental. Most of the OT is the story of the Jewish people. The rise and the fall. Now many of the old texts were passed by oral tradition, prior to writing them down. Therefore the grape-vine effect is in order.
Despite that it’s definatly, just as a piece of literature, a very interesting read. I’ll give the ancient hebrews one thing, they put it all down, the good, the bad and the ugly. So it’s an honest account.

BTW, nobody is a biblical literalist. Least of those who claim to be. Those who claim to be, only pick and choose what parts they want to take literally. Those parts they don’t like, are suddenly symbolic.[/quote]

Most of that story of the Jewish people is made up back story to justify later claims.[/quote]

Proof?[/quote]

Exactly, there is none for most of what is written in the OT[/quote]

I would be pleased if you could bring forth any 3 - 5 thousand year old documents with redundant verifications. That would be the litmus test for the above statement.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
You’re implying that only the existence of a supreme intelligence can explain the capabilities you’ve listed without the existence of a supreme intelligence being necessary.
[/quote]

Actually, I am not. I’m asking someone to prove to me how these three things can be possible in a purely physical world. I am implying that we don’t live in purely physical world and that a non-physical world is necessary.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Brother Chris wrote:<<< Well, I don’t know. I have never had anyone bring up an OT genocide before. I’ll have to do research on all that.[/quote]Please do Chris. This is what we’ve been talkin about for months. I am tellin you (again, not that you’ll probably care) that the answer is that God renders all things unchangeably certain including the fall of man, all sin and evil without in any way being morally responsible for it. He does this through the unsearchable mechanisms of His exalted nature in ways that lie entirely beyond our powers of comprehension. Do you really want a God whose governance of His creation is answerable to you (or me)? God forbid.

You mean free will. Well all reasonable questions will be answered in Heaven. I am not just a slave Tirib, in Christ we’re Priest, Prophet, and King. As, well we are no longer servants, but friends because a servant does not know his Lord’s plan (John 15:15).

[Vires_Eternus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EVERYTHING is good or bad because God defines and declares it as such[/quote]If G-d said and declared it was good and morally obligatory for you to kill your children. Is it?[/quote]Yes, and He has and it has been as you well know.
[/quote]

A point many …
[/quote]

And to let you know, I do NOT consider myself an Atheist. However I did come to a point where I could no longer ignore many of the rational arguments presented against the ideas of G-d’s ultimate ‘goodness’ and flawless nature as they are presented in Scripture.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian religion with a VERY literal interpretation of Scripture. I have recently been publicly ‘announced’ as no longer a member, and am now forever ‘shunned’ by my parents, brother, half my friends, etc. They will never speak to me again.

I know this because I had not nor have any of my family talked to my Uncle for over 25 years.

[/quote]

Well, I am very sorry you had to go through that! Yes, I have been shunned before and it is by far no fun. If you don’t mind answering, what fundamentalist group did you belong to?[/quote]

I’d simply rather not post it. But I’d like to trade notes some time. Feel free to PM on this.

[Vires_Eternus]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Brother Chris wrote:<<< Well, I don’t know. I have never had anyone bring up an OT genocide before. I’ll have to do research on all that.[/quote]Please do Chris. This is what we’ve been talkin about for months. I am tellin you (again, not that you’ll probably care) that the answer is that God renders all things unchangeably certain including the fall of man, all sin and evil without in any way being morally responsible for it. He does this through the unsearchable mechanisms of His exalted nature in ways that lie entirely beyond our powers of comprehension. Do you really want a God whose governance of His creation is answerable to you (or me)? God forbid.

Tiribulus, this is an area where I would have answered the same as you before. But I now find the logic runs afoul of other notions proposed about the nature of what G-d would find acceptable in areas of Faith and Worship. While I would agree that the nature of a being that could ‘will’ the Universe into existence would likely be in many ways “beyond our comprehension”, it would seem poorly played for him to engage in the inexplicable and apparently evil, leaving the unwashed mind and heart to assume his intentions.

When I have brought this up in conversation with my Father who is an Elder he often sites that it is the spirit that ‘chooses’ the individual, and therefore if their individual reaction to some of the things G-d has condoned or commanded that could be construed as evil, or at the least morally confusing, is negative, it is because they have not been chosen.

This in and of itself is one of the major hangups for a large number of non-believers. To them it is as if ministers of scripture are saying, “Who you gonna believe, G-d or your own lyin eyes?”

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

No I am not it was the original hypothetical I posted. You introduced verifications which the scenario did not call for. The point is and still is, that most of our knowledge about physical existence is knowledge by consensus. If two people come to two different conclusions about physical matter, and all other things are equal, and there is no third party verification, both parties have an equal chance of being right.
The goal post hasn’t moved, you are falling in to the exact trap I specified is the problem. With out verification, you don’t know your physical reality is right. It is very subjective.

[/quote]

It’s an example that does not pertain to reality. In reality we can verify whether a claim is grounded in reality, and which claim is not. I’m not discussing a hypothetical where everything is possible; there’s no use in that. Discussing a hypothetical will never rise above semantics, and it does not support your assertion.

Now THIS is an even more interesting statement. If you killed yourself, your body would remain, so how is it that YOU would cease to exist?

Ofcourse. My body will decompose. There will be no brainfunction: hence the end of me. Why is this an interesting statement pat? You know i don’t believe in a separate soul that continues after physical death.

Has this said 99.9% been established as THE correct number on the probability of life after death? If so, I’d like a link or something.
Second, I am certain of it. Physical realities depend on metaphysical ones, but not the other way around. It’s a one way street.

No, ofcourse it’s not THE correct number, and it shouldn’t surprise you that i’m of the opinion that metaphysical realities are utterly dependent on physical realities. I really don’t understand why you’re putting the cart before the horse here.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No I am not it was the original hypothetical I posted. You introduced verifications which the scenario did not call for. The point is and still is, that most of our knowledge about physical existence is knowledge by consensus. If two people come to two different conclusions about physical matter, and all other things are equal, and there is no third party verification, both parties have an equal chance of being right.
The goal post hasn’t moved, you are falling in to the exact trap I specified is the problem. With out verification, you don’t know your physical reality is right. It is very subjective.

[/quote]

It’s an example that does not pertain to reality. In reality we can verify whether a claim is grounded in reality, and which claim is not. I’m not discussing a hypothetical where everything is possible; there’s no use in that. Discussing a hypothetical will never rise above semantics, and it does not support your assertion.
[/quote]
Not always. But how do you verify a claim is real?

Now THIS is an even more interesting statement. If you killed yourself, your body would remain, so how is it that YOU would cease to exist?

Ofcourse. My body will decompose. There will be no brainfunction: hence the end of me. Why is this an interesting statement pat? You know i don’t believe in a separate soul that continues after physical death.

Is brain function the definition of life?

[quote]

Has this said 99.9% been established as THE correct number on the probability of life after death? If so, I’d like a link or something.
Second, I am certain of it. Physical realities depend on metaphysical ones, but not the other way around. It’s a one way street.

No, ofcourse it’s not THE correct number, and it shouldn’t surprise you that i’m of the opinion that metaphysical realities are utterly dependent on physical realities. I really don’t understand why you’re putting the cart before the horse here.[/quote]

I not worried about your opinion, I am concerned with what you can prove…
So metaphysical realities depend on physical ones? So like if I gave you some wood, you could put together a chair without a plan for a chair? So the chair needs to exist before the plan of a chair…It’s an interesting take.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No I am not it was the original hypothetical I posted. You introduced verifications which the scenario did not call for. The point is and still is, that most of our knowledge about physical existence is knowledge by consensus. If two people come to two different conclusions about physical matter, and all other things are equal, and there is no third party verification, both parties have an equal chance of being right.
The goal post hasn’t moved, you are falling in to the exact trap I specified is the problem. With out verification, you don’t know your physical reality is right. It is very subjective.

[/quote]

It’s an example that does not pertain to reality. In reality we can verify whether a claim is grounded in reality, and which claim is not. I’m not discussing a hypothetical where everything is possible; there’s no use in that. Discussing a hypothetical will never rise above semantics, and it does not support your assertion.
[/quote]
Not always. But how do you verify a claim is real?

Now THIS is an even more interesting statement. If you killed yourself, your body would remain, so how is it that YOU would cease to exist?

Ofcourse. My body will decompose. There will be no brainfunction: hence the end of me. Why is this an interesting statement pat? You know i don’t believe in a separate soul that continues after physical death.

Is brain function the definition of life?

Has this said 99.9% been established as THE correct number on the probability of life after death? If so, I’d like a link or something.
Second, I am certain of it. Physical realities depend on metaphysical ones, but not the other way around. It’s a one way street.

No, ofcourse it’s not THE correct number, and it shouldn’t surprise you that i’m of the opinion that metaphysical realities are utterly dependent on physical realities. I really don’t understand why you’re putting the cart before the horse here.[/quote]

I not worried about your opinion, I am concerned with what you can prove…
So metaphysical realities depend on physical ones? So like if I gave you some wood, you could put together a chair without a plan for a chair? So the chair needs to exist before the plan of a chair…It’s an interesting take.

1. Depends on what kind of claim it is.

2. Brainfunction is the indication of [human] life.

3. On one hand you’re talking about humans and their perception of reality and how one can’t prove to the other that what he’s experiencing is real. Now you’re talking about inanimate object as if they can act as humans.

You really need to be clear about what you’re talking about pat.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No I am not it was the original hypothetical I posted. You introduced verifications which the scenario did not call for. The point is and still is, that most of our knowledge about physical existence is knowledge by consensus. If two people come to two different conclusions about physical matter, and all other things are equal, and there is no third party verification, both parties have an equal chance of being right.
The goal post hasn’t moved, you are falling in to the exact trap I specified is the problem. With out verification, you don’t know your physical reality is right. It is very subjective.

[/quote]

It’s an example that does not pertain to reality. In reality we can verify whether a claim is grounded in reality, and which claim is not. I’m not discussing a hypothetical where everything is possible; there’s no use in that. Discussing a hypothetical will never rise above semantics, and it does not support your assertion.
[/quote]
Not always. But how do you verify a claim is real?

Now THIS is an even more interesting statement. If you killed yourself, your body would remain, so how is it that YOU would cease to exist?

Ofcourse. My body will decompose. There will be no brainfunction: hence the end of me. Why is this an interesting statement pat? You know i don’t believe in a separate soul that continues after physical death.

Is brain function the definition of life?

Has this said 99.9% been established as THE correct number on the probability of life after death? If so, I’d like a link or something.
Second, I am certain of it. Physical realities depend on metaphysical ones, but not the other way around. It’s a one way street.

No, ofcourse it’s not THE correct number, and it shouldn’t surprise you that i’m of the opinion that metaphysical realities are utterly dependent on physical realities. I really don’t understand why you’re putting the cart before the horse here.[/quote]

I not worried about your opinion, I am concerned with what you can prove…
So metaphysical realities depend on physical ones? So like if I gave you some wood, you could put together a chair without a plan for a chair? So the chair needs to exist before the plan of a chair…It’s an interesting take.

1. Depends on what kind of claim it is.
   [/quote]
   Really? What were we just talking about? Physical reality. Geez…I made the assertion that our knowledge of physical reality is based on consensus between people. I provided a hypothetical that demonstrates the fact. Now you either have to concede I am right or prove I am wrong.

2. Brainfunction is the indication of [human] life.

Indication? That’s not a answer to “What is?”

3. On one hand you’re talking about humans and their perception of reality and how one can’t prove to the other that what he’s experiencing is real. Now you’re talking about inanimate object as if they can act as humans.

You really need to be clear about what you’re talking about pat.

Huh? Where’d did you get lost? What inanimate object acting as humans? why the strawman? I made no such assertion. You introduced that physical reality beget metaphysical ones, I was merely demonstrating that that’s not true.

[ephrem]

Pat, you rejected my means of proving a claim by using a [infrared] camera, remember?

Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Life - definition of life by The Free Dictionary

All these functions depend on the brain.

You’re right, i got confused with your chair example. Sorry about that. But the simple fact of the matter is that you need a physical reality [brainfunction, e.i. life] to even be able to have a thought or concept.

The body gives rise to the persona. The persona did not exist prior to the bodies existence. Once the body stops functioning [dies] the persona ceases to exist.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat, you rejected my means of proving a claim by using a [infrared] camera, remember?
[/quote]
It was a verification in a scenario where there was none available. The point is, as stated before, is that physical reality is proven by consensus. It the table example, the infered camera is fine, so long as no third party was there to back up on of the two claims. But let’s say you, who did not see the table, and the other guy who did see the table, still observed the same things with the inferred image. I.E. you saw no table, and he saw the table in the inferred image? Who is right?

Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Life - definition of life by The Free Dictionary

All these functions depend on the brain.

All of which describe the difference between living and non-living things, not what life actually is.
Plants don’t have brains, are they therefore dead?

You’re right, i got confused with your chair example. Sorry about that. But the simple fact of the matter is that you need a physical reality [brainfunction, e.i. life] to even be able to have a thought or concept.

Yes, I would agree, but you still cannot prove it exists, with out consensus. Even with consensus you just happen to agree with somebody else that it is reality.
Second, I of course believe in physical existence, and sure, we need a brain to obtain thoughts and concepts, but that doesn’t mean the thoughts and concepts don’t already exist, it just means we need something to tell us about them in a brain.

[quote]
The body gives rise to the persona. The persona did not exist prior to the bodies existence. Once the body stops functioning [dies] the persona ceases to exist.[/quote]

You’re going to hate me, but what’s a persona?

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

Pat, you rejected my means of proving a claim by using a [infrared] camera, remember?

It was a verification in a scenario where there was none available. The point is, as stated before, is that physical reality is proven by consensus. It the table example, the infered camera is fine, so long as no third party was there to back up on of the two claims. But let’s say you, who did not see the table, and the other guy who did see the table, still observed the same things with the inferred image. I.E. you saw no table, and he saw the table in the inferred image? Who is right?[/quote]

Fine, within this unlikely and far from rational scenario there’d be no sure way of ascertaining who is right and who is wrong. Congrats.

[quote]
Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Life - definition of life by The Free Dictionary

All these functions depend on the brain.

All of which describe the difference between living and non-living things, not what life actually is.
Plants don’t have brains, are they therefore dead?[/quote]

As a mammal i wasn’t thinking of plants, but no, plants aren’t dead inspite of the absence of a brain.

[quote]
You’re right, i got confused with your chair example. Sorry about that. But the simple fact of the matter is that you need a physical reality [brainfunction, e.i. life] to even be able to have a thought or concept.

Yes, I would agree, but you still cannot prove it exists, with out consensus. Even with consensus you just happen to agree with somebody else that it is reality.
Second, I of course believe in physical existence, and sure, we need a brain to obtain thoughts and concepts, but that doesn’t mean the thoughts and concepts don’t already exist, it just means we need something to tell us about them in a brain. [/quote]

What is “it” i can’t prove? I don’t understand your last sentence. Are you suggesting we’re downloading concepts from a metaphysical network that existed before mankind?

I have to ask you to be more forthcoming with how you frame your ideas, because you’re not making much sense.

[quote]
The body gives rise to the persona. The persona did not exist prior to the bodies existence. Once the body stops functioning [dies] the persona ceases to exist.

You’re going to hate me, but what’s a persona?[/quote]

Persona: the whole of what makes you, you: ego, subconscious, id, character. Everything that exists as you.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:<<< This in and of itself is one of the major hangups for a large number of non-believers. To them it is as if ministers of scripture are saying, “Who you gonna believe, G-d or your own lyin eyes?” >>>[/quote]I absolutely and without hesitation believe God over my own eyes, heart, soul or mind. That’s what faith is. “the substance of things HOPED for and the evidence of things NOT SEEN” (Hebrews 1:1)

If your father is actually saying that people don’t believe because they’re not chosen? That is a false perspective of things not to be known to us in this life. People don’t believe because they’re dead. Just like this world is no longer accessible to those whose funerals we’ve attended? The once born children of Adam are dead to the kingdom of God, the things of God, until born again into Christ’s resurrection and thereby made alive to the truth of the gospel.

I would never dare, DARE, utter one syllable (or think one thought) designed to convey the notion that I know who is chosen and who is not. I hope for, love, pray for and treat EVERYBODY as if they are. I want them all in heaven with me. I’ll try for more later friend. It would be a full time job for me to answer everything everybody asks all the time.

[SSC]

I am disappoint. I know I wrote a lengthy diatribe but I can’t get any debate from it?

[Makavali]

[quote]SSC wrote:
I am disappoint. I know I wrote a lengthy diatribe but I can’t get any debate from it?[/quote]

No one likes reasonable people.

[goldengloves]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
You’re implying that only the existence of a supreme intelligence can explain the capabilities you’ve listed without the existence of a supreme intelligence being necessary.
[/quote]

Actually, I am not. I’m asking someone to prove to me how these three things can be possible in a purely physical world. I am implying that we don’t live in purely physical world and that a non-physical world is necessary.[/quote]

Wouldn’t you first have to prove that a non-physical world is necessary? Thanks for clarifying though.

[Tiribulus]

ephrem wrote:<<< Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. Life - definition of life by The Free Dictionary >>>[/quote]1st epistle of John 1:1-4[quote]1-What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life- 2-and the Life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal Life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us- 3-what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4-These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete

[ephrem]

[quote]SSC wrote:
I am disappoint. I know I wrote a lengthy diatribe but I can’t get any debate from it?[/quote]

I think because it was lengthy you had no respons. Take one issue that’s closest to your heart and hit them over the head with it. Oh, and just jump in anywhere.

[ephrem]

Sense of justice built into the brain

Sense of justice built into the brain

Perhaps metaphysical concepts aren’t that metaphysical to begin with?

[Charlie_Horse]

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sense of justice built into the brain

Sense of justice built into the brain

Perhaps metaphysical concepts aren’t that metaphysical to begin with?[/quote]

In the one psych class I took the professor and my textbook implied that the mind-body dualism thing is no longer studied and that all advances would be in physiology/neurobiology. This was psych 101, a basic first year course.