[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< Out of curiosity, not criticism, what sect of Christianity do you pray for him to become?[/quote]If by “sect” you mean specific church or denomination? That misses the point. Saving grace is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ whose true body, His church, consists of all those genuinely called and regenerated unto new life in Him. I pray for Ephrem and abuncha other guys (and a couple girls) around here all the time.
Individually, by name. My prayer is simply that God would subdue their stubborn will and raise them from death to life thereby showing Himself mighty in the Earth as they become living testimonies to His grace, love and power. I tell Him how honored I would be if He should be so generous as to allow me to be used on His behalf and that He would always please season my speech with grace and that He would save me from the deadly poison of self righteousness in as far that depends on me. There’s also some individual stuff that is not for public consumption.
The Lord will take care of where they fellowship if any are truly His elect and respond to His call. There is no “my sect” that nobody can really know God without if that’s what you’re asking me.
[quote]forbes wrote:
One thing I’ve learned (and I had this epiphany last night) is that there really is nothing different between atheits and believers. We look at the SAME evidence for both our claims. What separates us is our interpretation of these pieces of evidence.[/quote]
You can keep telling yourself that, but it won’t be true.
It’s fascinating to me how badly believers want for it to be true that we think similarly. There is a huge gap between the mind of an atheist and the mind of a believer. [/quote]
He is not asserting that we think similarly, he simply said we look at the same body of evidence. [/quote]
Religious folk may look, but they sure do ignore a lot.[/quote]
Perhaps a vast majority, which I am sad to say is true. However I think its safe to say that the Christians on this board have not ignored anything. We are educated individual’s. We just have a hard time believing that everything is a product of mindless chance.[/quote]
lol
No. Just no. You may have gone through the educational system, but you are far from educated.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< He’s gonna drop ya on yer head one day. I pray it’s BEFORE you die so you’ll fall from His shoulders into His arms as He makes you alive.
[/quote]
What if he makes me Catholic?
[/quote]LOL!! Outstanding!! Yer a real sport these last couple days ya know that. If He does, He will have most certainly not answered my prayers which I hasten to fully recognize as His right.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, not criticism, what sect of Christianity do you pray for him to become?[/quote]
Despite what he might say, it’ll be his particular sect or brand of religion he prays for.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
[/quote]He’s gonna drop ya on yer head one day. I pray it’s BEFORE you die so you’ll fall from His shoulders into His arms as He makes you alive.
[/quote]
Sure. If the universe, in whatever shape or form, always existed there’s no need for a something to birth something.
[/quote]
You know what chaps my ass? If you post a video or link, you insist I watch it…But if I post a link, you don’t bother with it and repeat the same thing over and over again when the links I provide clearly dispel what you just wrote. It was dispelled centuries ago. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I do not see from you the same thing. I think you believe what you believe because it’s convenient, the truth of it is irrelevant.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.[/quote]
Despite the big words, matter and energy always existing is irrelevant to contingency and causation. All things, depend on other things. Temporal adherence is not a factor.
[quote]forlife wrote:
There can’t be a “first” if matter and energy have always existed.[/quote]
A metal ring has no beginning or end, but one can still be created.[/quote]
You’re confusing circumference with creation. We’re talking about matter and energy having always existed, which precludes the possibility that matter and energy were created. Logically, it’s impossible for both to be true, since something cannot be created if it has always existed.[/quote]
Even the ring’s existence has dependencies… That which is not dependent is the first cause.
I think the jury is still out on the necessity of a cause for the matter that makes up our universe and the physical laws and forces governing it. I don’t say this to quell speculation or debate here. I just honestly think that this debate is taking place in much more informed arenas than this forum.
I also do not fault anyone for being passionately adherent to any given position as it relates to this.
I think DD makes a pretty good case, but there are scads of highly qualified physicists that make an opposite case just as convincingly.
I think that taking a leap in reasoning form the position that there must be a cause, to that cause being a god (in the common sense of the term) with a specific set of attributes can not stand up to any legitimate challenge.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.[/quote]
I pointed out a ways back. Eternal in the time of the universe doesn’t exclude the possibility of a cause.[/quote]
It excludes the possibility of a First Cause.[/quote]
First cause is what Aristotle called it…Uncaused-cause is more appropriate. You have to forget about time in all this, it’s not pertinent and has been dispelled many centuries ago, even before the possibility of time=0 was a real discovery by man.
Ofcourse matter can exist of it’s own accord. It exists, doesn’t it? That’s your proof.
Now give me proof of your uncaused cause.
[/quote]
It existing and having no ability to bring about it’s own existence is my proof.[/quote]
Not having proof is proof of not having proof. It doesn’t prove that of which you have no proof.
[/quote]
So where’s your proof? I have asked for proofs for your singularity thingy, your proof for randomness your proof for chaos, you have provided none. So why should anybody be obliged to provide you proof? It’s a legitimate question, is it not?
There was no matter before matter. There’s just energy at various wavelengths, and altough the wavelength changes due to supernovae or decomposition; energy is still energy.
I’d have to go as far as saying that there’s a finite amount of energy in the universe. This energy was not created, but has always been. The expressions of how this energy manifests itself however is infinite, and we’re lucky enough to experience one of those countless expressions.
[/quote]
To explain matter (the universe) you have to explain the systems and rules that govern it. And you can’t even do an infinite loop with the laws of the universe. What caused the laws of the universe?
But “always” (read infinity) is just a concept. You need to remove it from your hypothesis to make it a theory. Try your explanation without invoking an unfathomable inconceivable concept.[/quote]
Check chaos theory how ordered systems emerge from chaos.
I don’t know where the forces that rule the universe come from. Nobody knows.
You do realise that “god” is an unfathomable inconceivable concept, don’t you?
[/quote]
Chaos is just a name, there’s only understood things…
You realize that “something from nothing” is ridiculously unfathomable…It’s simply not possible.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< What if he made me atheist? He probably had his reasons for doing so, don’t you think?
[/quote]God doesn’t “make” anybody an “atheist”. Atheists don’t exist remember? He would have His reasons for leaving you dead in trespasses and sins though. To the resounding praise of his majestic holiness and flawless justice. I am not at liberty to view you as anything less than a creature made in the dignity of His image, marred though it is by sin. Just like me and no more deserving of His terrible judgments than I am. Hence I pray for and love you as a fellow man for whom I only wish the same unsearchable grace, mercy, peace and eternal assurance that have been so undeservedly showered upon me. I count it joy and a privilege to do so.
I know I may come off the wrong way to you guys sometimes. I don’t mean it like that. I just want you in my family.
[/quote]
Sure. If the universe, in whatever shape or form, always existed there’s no need for a something to birth something.
[/quote]
You know what chaps my ass? If you post a video or link, you insist I watch it…But if I post a link, you don’t bother with it and repeat the same thing over and over again when the links I provide clearly dispel what you just wrote. It was dispelled centuries ago. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I do not see from you the same thing. I think you believe what you believe because it’s convenient, the truth of it is irrelevant.[/quote]
I think we’re getting somewhere pat. Maybe we’ve even reached a breakthrough.
This applies to all of us: I think you believe what you believe because it’s convenient, the truth of it is irrelevant
I don’t think the eternal universe is the truth. I don’t know the truth. You otoh say you do know the truth when the fact of the matter is: all you have is assumption disguised as truth.
We all are really just the same; the only thing that’s different is how we deal with not-knowing.
Ofcourse matter can exist of it’s own accord. It exists, doesn’t it? That’s your proof.
Now give me proof of your uncaused cause.
[/quote]
It existing and having no ability to bring about it’s own existence is my proof.[/quote]
Not having proof is proof of not having proof. It doesn’t prove that of which you have no proof.
[/quote]
So where’s your proof? I have asked for proofs for your singularity thingy, your proof for randomness your proof for chaos, you have provided none. So why should anybody be obliged to provide you proof? It’s a legitimate question, is it not?[/quote]
Do you accept the Cosmic Background Radiation as proof of the Big Bang?
Check chaos theory how ordered systems emerge from chaos.
I don’t know where the forces that rule the universe come from. Nobody knows.
You do realise that “god” is an unfathomable inconceivable concept, don’t you?
[/quote]
Chaos is just a name, there’s only understood things…
You realize that “something from nothing” is ridiculously unfathomable…It’s simply not possible.[/quote]
That’s why i never claimed “something from nothing” but say “there’s always been something”.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< What if he made me atheist? He probably had his reasons for doing so, don’t you think?
[/quote]God doesn’t “make” anybody an “atheist”. Atheists don’t exist remember? He would have His reasons for leaving you dead in trespasses and sins though. To the resounding praise of his majestic holiness and flawless justice. I am not at liberty to view you as anything less than a creature made in the dignity of His image, marred though it is by sin. Just like me and no more deserving of His terrible judgments than I am. Hence I pray for and love you as a fellow man for whom I only wish the same unsearchable grace, mercy, peace and eternal assurance that have been so undeservedly showered upon me. I count it joy and a privilege to do so.
I know I may come off the wrong way to you guys sometimes. I don’t mean it like that. I just want you in my family.
[/quote]Sorry, your family is dysfunctional. I pass.
[/quote]Indeed it is. Being wholly comprised of wholly dysfunctional and undone individuals who by His grace recognize themselves as such and seek His holy face that they may be increasingly transformed into the image of His perfection and purity. Resurrected spiritual corpses though resurrected indeed, retain some of the stench of death until His return when this corruption shall put on the incorruptible. The whole world is dysfunctional Eph. Look around.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Do you accept the Cosmic Background Radiation as proof of the Big Bang?
[/quote]
You don’t even need that. Using highschool calculus, and assuming expansion, the strong energy condition, and isotropy you can show there was necessarily a big bang. You can relax isotropy and do it more generally, which is the content of the Hawking-Penrose theorem.
