Defining a 'True Christian'?

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Capped that you can’t logically prove the existence of God. Many believers acknowledge this as well, which is why they call it faith. Not only do some believers ignore logic, but some actually deride logic, as the flawed tool of “sinful, fallen man”. It allows them to believe in literally anything, without a twinge of doubt or remorse. Comforting, but hardly correct.

There are many viable explanations for the existence of the universe, outside the idea of a divine creator. My personal theory is that the universe has always existed, through an infinite series of expansions and contractions. I don’t believe ex nihilo is possible, through either natural or supernatural means.[/quote]

Actually, the logic is sound and the premises have been tested over and over. But the logic for the existence of God is way more sound, and far more solid than the opposite. It’s not 100% but it’s at least 98% verifiably true. People make reliable hypothesis based on far weaker logic.[/quote]

Why do you believe it’s less than 2% likely that matter/energy have always existed? Especially in consideration for the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed?[/quote]

Especially when he believes in a being that always existed, which necessarily means the place that being resides always existed (if God always existed heaven must have always existed for God to be in).

Then you have to consider that time must also exist in heaven, because wae have stories that chronical before, during, and after events in heaven (Lucifers fall, etc).

Also, I love the claims making - the premises have been tested over and over. Which premises? Tested how and by whom? Oh, wait, I know… christians said “The universe exists therefore it was God.” and then they checked and… yup, the universe exists! Proof of god all the time.[/quote]

Because matter, the universe and the first law of thermodynamics, including the governing law itself is contingent upon other things. You guys think two dimensionally about this stuff.

A beam of light travels at the speed of light if unimpeded. The speed of light is time=0, right? If a beam of light is timeless it is also eternal, but it begins from somewhere. It�¢??s something eternal and has a beginning. If it runs in to something it can end, but if you are in the beam of light, you�¢??ll never know it, it just is. Matter is made of stuff and comes from stuff, the laws that govern stuff is also made of stuff and comes from stuff and none of that is material.
Also, you have read that the theories that the laws of thermodynamics may not hold true under the pressure of gravity, i.e. black holes. There are other theories as well, but the destruction of information is one of them and is a possibility and is currently viable.

Further, there is no evidence, not a tiny little shred of empirical evidence that universe and matter are actually infinite. There is no evidence of randomness anywhere in the universe, nor a place or moment of absolute nothingness. Yet, that is what you are trusting, unfulfilled logic with a complete absence of evidence.

You know how all these big brains and academics came up with these theories? Math and reason, both incomplete. The math takes them somewhere, but then they infer what the results mean. They are logical inferences, based on the results of equations.
[/quote]

Pat, I’m still not seeing where you derive a 98% probability that the laws of thermodynamics haven’t always applied. A remote theoretical possibility is a far cry from a 98% certainty. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the laws of thermodynamics, which state that matter/energy can’t be created or destroyed, and hence are infinite.

Light doesn’t travel at an infinite speed. It is quantifiable (186k miles/second). And creating light by turning on a flashlight doesn’t actually create matter/energy; it converts it.

Those big brains and academics you mention are the best logicians on the planet. Do you believe that all of them fail at logic, because they disagree with your claim of 98% certainty?
[/quote]

8% is just a number I made up. In the context in which I said it, it probably a bad idea in a sea of facts and deductive logic.

The law of thermodynamics is solid, I have absolutely no beef with it what so ever, that’s not what I was saying. I said two different things about it, I said it’s contingent / dependant and that it can potentially be violated by the gravitational pull with in a black hole. Where did the law of thermodynamics come from, why does it work and why can’t it fail? Scientific laws are metaphysical entities, they have nothing to them that can be sensed. All you can do is observe the behavior of things that follow the laws.

Let’s break the law down, what does it require? Energy and change, both are required or there is no law.

Light does not travel at infinite speed, but the speed of light stops time if you are in the light there is no time to the light. Perhaps is was a bad analogy, but getting into metaphysics just confounds people. Metaphysics is my favorite because it take time out of the equation. It makes understanding causation much easier. But you have to understand metaphysics first, which is royal pain in the ass to explain on a forumâ?¦.

No I am not contesting the intellectual prowess of big brained academics, nor am I contesting their findings. I actually depend on them to make my points. My point there was that they are inferring theories based on what the math shows themâ?¦.I.E, they try to interpret what they mean. 2+2=4 is a deductive finding, what does it mean in the quantum world, or in the a blackhole, etc. They, by their own admission know it’s a theory and there is much more work to be done to either prove or dispel. My point is that atheists will put 100% faith in theoretical physics and determine there is no God, which is flat wrong. Oh look, strings! Wow, singularities! There must be no God. Incorrect, it does not solve the problem of dependence and contingency, it just puts something else out there to consider, does not break the logic of causation.

[pat]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The bible does not even say God lives in the sky, so that�¢??s just stupid right there. You are trying to refute arguments made by cavemen 3,000,000 years ago. [/quote]

Sigh. Bible says god lives in heaven. Bible says god put a dome over the earth to seperate the waters of earth from the waters of heaven. This means heaven is up, above the earth, in that place that we fucking call “sky”.

So, the bible says God lives in Heaven which is above the earth, in the sky.

So, the bible says god lives in the sky (the part called heaven).

in the bible, God also says “As the heavens are above the earth”. Again, heaven = above earth = sky = where God lives.

The bible says god lives in the sky. Get over it.[/quote]

Uh, no. I am quite certain I know the bible better than you do. Show me that passage that says God lives in the sky.

[pat]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here’s what happened: You had this group of people who said “God exists.” And some people said, “I don’t believe that. I’ve never seen this God you speak of, he does not exist. I’ve never seen evidence of the garden of eden or any of these things”

And the believers made an argument of ignorance. They said “The garden of eden is very far away, farther than you can travel. You must just believe.” They said “God lives up in Heaven, which is very far up in the sky, farther than you can see. You must just believe.”

So humanity progressed and the whole earth was discovered, with no garden. Humans built rocket ships and went way up into the sky where the believers claimed God was. With no God.

And, rather than just admit they had been wrong about the garden and wrong about God they make up cop outs as to why no evidence was found of these things they made claims about. God is invisible, they said. God made the garden of eden vanish from the earth. You must just believe, they said.

And the nonbelievers said “Sorry, you made claims that would give us great evidence if they were true. We’ve found no evidence, so we decide your claims are not true.”

And the believers made an argument of ignorance. They said “Oh, well then, explain the origins of the universe?”

And, eventually, humanity will have the tools needed to answer the question. And it will be answered, and the believers will make up more nonsense lies on top of their previous nonsense lies and call it “logic”.[/quote]

It should be easy then, prove me wrong. But actually things I said or links I allowed to speak for me. I neither said, inferred, danced around, impressed upon, signed any of the garbage you wrote above. Not once.

[forlife]

Pat, first just wanted to say I appreciate the spirit of the discussion. I think you know me well enough by now to understand I don’t consider myself any more intelligent or informed than anyone else, especially when it comes to the most important and the most elusive questions of the universe. Everything I’m saying is based on my current limited understanding, in my own pursuit of truth.

In other words, please don’t take offense if I disagree on some points

If matter/energy have always existed, as the laws of thermodynamics assert, then those same laws have probably always existed as well. The laws are nothing more than a description of what matter/energy is and how it behaves. Nobody created the law of gravity; it is simply a description of how matter interacts with other matter.

The great minds you mention are logical, and because they are logical, they look at various theories that are possible based on current evidence, without claiming that a particular theory on the creation of the universe must be true. Do you see how that is very different from claiming a very high (98% or whatever) certainty that there must be a god, based on logic alone?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You claim God chooses some to save, and some to damn, directly CONTRARY to their will. >>>[/quote]He conquers their will by His grace, mercy and love so that the the most willing thing they will ever do is trust their lives to Him.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You also claim that, mysteriously beyond our comprehension but somehow consistent with logic, God gives us the ability to choose. >>>[/quote]Beyond our comprehension, but not His and that trust is the very definition of faith. Logic governed by supernatural faith, which is itself the gift of God, IS as logical as it gets by the definition of the God who is the creator of my mind and yours. You CANNOT see that from your side of the spiritual grave. Not because you are gay, but because you are dead. Homosexuality is but one manifestation of spiritual death. Trust me when I tell you one more time that apart from the righteousness of the risen Christ I am just as dead as you are.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You can’t have it both ways. Logically, men either have free will or we don’t. You don’t get to claim people have choice, while in the same breath insisting that God is the one doing the choosing, despite what we actually choose or desire. >>>[/quote]Yes I can, God disagrees, and yes I do.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When I called you on this, you accused me of worshiping at the altar of rationality, and of using sinful, fallen man logic. >>>[/quote]That wasn’t an accusation that was and is a declaration. [quote]forlife wrote:Somehow, it all makes sense to God, because His ways are higher than our ways. >>>[/quote]I wouldn’t state it exactly this way, but yep.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Classic example of the powerful, insidious biases I was talking about, where men have the capacity to dismiss all logical contradictions and objective facts in order to rationalize their beliefs.[/quote]Actually it’s when men are brought to life and forsake all actual logical contradictions and embrace authentic objectivity for the very first time. The standard is at last comprehensive, flawless, ultimately authoritative and entirely external to themselves on one hand and living within them on the other.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I proclaim logic as an integral component of the image of God in man, even fallen man. What I “deride” (we’ll use your term) is it’s misuse for ungodly beliefs and purposes as universally and unavoidably practiced in every one of the human race yet dead in trespasses and sins. Repent, believe and live and you too can see.
[/quote]Nope. You freely admit you start from a conclusion and work from there. That is antithetical to logic.[/quote]And so do you. The very act of investigating the existence of the true and living God as if He were a common created object of knowledge is to presuppose His non existence as He is entirely insusceptible to such insolent probing. He’s staring you in face in every fact of creation and especially yourself. You almost had it the other day when you said “you can shine a flashlight in a blind man’s eyes all day and he isn’t going to see it.”

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Poof away the evidence? Who have you been hearing this shit from, because this isn’t sound theology at all. You should really stop talking to fundamentalist, because your understanding of Christian theology isn’t even in left field anymore, it is in the bleachers.
[/quote]

Really Chris? Really??

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/bible_contradictions?id=4254835&pageNo=2

Read that page. Note where I ask:

How about that flaming sword guarding the tree of eternal life “from every way”? How come THAT hasnt been found now that we can see 100% of the earth?

And another poster on T nation replies:

The flaming sword, since I presume it was a divine sword made from God, vanished after it was no longer necessary. I presume the Garden of Eden took a while to decay naturally. When it did, God most likely removed it or destroyed it.

Ya ya I know…how convenient.

Thing is I can say that about may things you believe.

And then read the fucking part where, four posts below the reply to me, YOUR NAME APPEARS.

So you obviously read the thread. Yet you’re sitting here now asking me “who I’ve been hearing this shit from”??

Seriously, Chris?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sigh. Bible says god lives in heaven.[/quote]

Verse.[/quote]

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/5-2.htm

See, chris, its much harder for you to make claims like this now that the internet exists. Years back, if I hadn’t read the whole bible and could tell you every verse, I would have to admit “I dont know”. Then you could make up some lie like “There is no verse that says so”

But, thanks to the intarwebs here, I do a quick search and… shiz-zam. There’s the first that clearly, clearly, clearly, in every possible version, says “God is in heaven.” So you cant now claim the verse doesn’t exist.

Let me guess, though, now you’ll split hairs about my saying “God lives in heaven” and the verse saying “God is in heaven”? right? Is the the cop out I’m in for?

[forlife]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You claim God chooses some to save, and some to damn, directly CONTRARY to their will. >>>[/quote]He conquers their will by His grace, mercy and love so that the the most willing thing they will ever do is trust their lives to Him.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You also claim that, mysteriously beyond our comprehension but somehow consistent with logic, God gives us the ability to choose. >>>[/quote]Beyond our comprehension, but not His and that trust is the very definition of faith. Logic governed by supernatural faith, which is itself the gift of God, IS as logical as it gets by the definition of the God who is the creator of my mind and yours. You CANNOT see that from your side of the spiritual grave. Not because you are gay, but because you are dead. Homosexuality is but one manifestation of spiritual death. Trust me when I tell you one more time that apart from the righteousness of the risen Christ I am just as dead as you are.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You can’t have it both ways. Logically, men either have free will or we don’t. You don’t get to claim people have choice, while in the same breath insisting that God is the one doing the choosing, despite what we actually choose or desire. >>>[/quote]Yes I can, God disagrees, and yes I do.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When I called you on this, you accused me of worshiping at the altar of rationality, and of using sinful, fallen man logic. >>>[/quote]That wasn’t an accusation that was and is a declaration. [quote]forlife wrote:Somehow, it all makes sense to God, because His ways are higher than our ways. >>>[/quote]I wouldn’t state it exactly this way, but yep.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Classic example of the powerful, insidious biases I was talking about, where men have the capacity to dismiss all logical contradictions and objective facts in order to rationalize their beliefs.[/quote]Actually it’s when men are brought to life and forsake all actual logical contradictions and embrace authentic objectivity for the very first time. The standard is at last comprehensive, flawless, ultimately authoritative and entirely external to themselves on one hand and living within them on the other.
[/quote]

You just illustrated my point perfectly.

It’s fine if you find comfort in “forsaking all logical contradictions” in the name of your beliefs. But don’t pretend that your beliefs are grounded in logic. You just admitted that they aren’t.

Like I said, people willingly forsake logic and objective evidence in order to have confidence in their beliefs. It is classic confirmatory bias, and is well documented in psychological research. But confidence doesn’t translate to correctness. I know you’re perfectly convinced that your beliefs are grounded in reality, but it is an emotional and psychological smokescreen, derived from our deepest needs for comfort, purpose, and direction.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, first just wanted to say I appreciate the spirit of the discussion. I think you know me well enough by now to understand I don’t consider myself any more intelligent or informed than anyone else, especially when it comes to the most important and the most elusive questions of the universe. Everything I’m saying is based on my current limited understanding, in my own pursuit of truth.

In other words, please don’t take offense if I disagree on some points

If matter/energy have always existed, as the laws of thermodynamics assert, then those same laws have probably always existed as well. The laws are nothing more than a description of what matter/energy is and how it behaves. Nobody created the law of gravity; it is simply a description of how matter interacts with other matter.

The great minds you mention are logical, and because they are logical, they look at various theories that are possible based on current evidence, without claiming that a particular theory on the creation of the universe must be true. Do you see how that is very different from claiming a very high (98% or whatever) certainty that there must be a god, based on logic alone? [/quote]

Disagreements are fine, I appreciate the disagreements. They make me think and grow. It’s when they are based with insults and arrogance that I get cantankerous. I bite back. But no worries I enjoy the challenge and personally I think it’s fun…

I will address your points. Correct laws, at least to us, are a description of consistent behavior. The question is, is why does it behave that way and why is it consistent. Our ‘laws’ are little more than an observation, but there is a reason matter and energy behave that way.
The why and how are the metaphysical components. If you really think about it, every thing from the smallest spec to the largest object has a metaphysical component.

If you contest the existence of metaphysics, then I would request you just google it, there is so much info out there I couldn’t really do it justice. But if you under stand it, then you see that the metaphysics is the straw that stirs the drink; with out it nothing happens. Much like your body, the muscles move the weight, but the nervous system is the boss, the metaphysical component of things is the boss.

To your second point, what they are dealing with is logic alone. Stuff is just stuff, with out order, behavior, movement and change material is useless. The laws tell stuff what to do, scientists try to figure out and explain what they are doing, and they are using pure logic. That’s not to say they don’t do experiments and derive theories based on empirical things, but what they derive is based on logic. Some of them do claim their views on the origin of the universe is must be true.

The purity of the logic is unmistakable and pretty much infallible. What cannot be proved is that all the premises are 100% correct. It’s simply not possible and never will be, but there is sufficient evidence in every aspect of the universe that we know of, that cosmology is true.

To dispel it, you have to prove causation is not true. That randomness exists and that from nothing can come something. That is the necessary counter arguments. And if you look at it, that is exactely what many philosophers and scientists try to do. Philosophers can kinda sorta postulate such an idea. But there is no empirical evidence, not a shred of it anywhere for scientists.

[pat]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sigh. Bible says god lives in heaven.[/quote]

Verse.[/quote]

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/5-2.htm

See, chris, its much harder for you to make claims like this now that the internet exists. Years back, if I hadn’t read the whole bible and could tell you every verse, I would have to admit “I dont know”. Then you could make up some lie like “There is no verse that says so”

But, thanks to the intarwebs here, I do a quick search and… shiz-zam. There’s the first that clearly, clearly, clearly, in every possible version, says “God is in heaven.” So you cant now claim the verse doesn’t exist.

Let me guess, though, now you’ll split hairs about my saying “God lives in heaven” and the verse saying “God is in heaven”? right? Is the the cop out I’m in for?[/quote]

Uh no, you said God was in the sky. That verse does not say where or what heaven is or God. We know God is in heaven. You said sky, BIG difference.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You claim God chooses some to save, and some to damn, directly CONTRARY to their will. >>>[/quote]He conquers their will by His grace, mercy and love so that the the most willing thing they will ever do is trust their lives to Him.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You also claim that, mysteriously beyond our comprehension but somehow consistent with logic, God gives us the ability to choose. >>>[/quote]Beyond our comprehension, but not His and that trust is the very definition of faith. Logic governed by supernatural faith, which is itself the gift of God, IS as logical as it gets by the definition of the God who is the creator of my mind and yours. You CANNOT see that from your side of the spiritual grave. Not because you are gay, but because you are dead. Homosexuality is but one manifestation of spiritual death. Trust me when I tell you one more time that apart from the righteousness of the risen Christ I am just as dead as you are.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You can’t have it both ways. Logically, men either have free will or we don’t. You don’t get to claim people have choice, while in the same breath insisting that God is the one doing the choosing, despite what we actually choose or desire. >>>[/quote]Yes I can, God disagrees, and yes I do.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When I called you on this, you accused me of worshiping at the altar of rationality, and of using sinful, fallen man logic. >>>[/quote]That wasn’t an accusation that was and is a declaration. [quote]forlife wrote:Somehow, it all makes sense to God, because His ways are higher than our ways. >>>[/quote]I wouldn’t state it exactly this way, but yep.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Classic example of the powerful, insidious biases I was talking about, where men have the capacity to dismiss all logical contradictions and objective facts in order to rationalize their beliefs.[/quote]Actually it’s when men are brought to life and forsake all actual logical contradictions and embrace authentic objectivity for the very first time. The standard is at last comprehensive, flawless, ultimately authoritative and entirely external to themselves on one hand and living within them on the other.
[/quote]

You just illustrated my point perfectly.

It’s fine if you find comfort in “forsaking all logical contradictions” in the name of your beliefs. But don’t pretend that your beliefs are grounded in logic. You just admitted that they aren’t.

Like I said, people willingly forsake logic and objective evidence in order to have confidence in their beliefs. It is classic confirmatory bias, and is well documented in psychological research. But confidence doesn’t translate to correctness. I know you’re perfectly convinced that your beliefs are grounded in reality, but it is an emotional and psychological smokescreen, derived from our deepest needs for comfort, purpose, and direction. [/quote]

Most people are not logical whether they are theists or not. Most people believe stuff and but cannot explain why. I don’t think it’s fair to put that on religious folks alone.
Plain and simple, most people just do, they don’t think about the big questions.

If I ever start talking about it, eyes just glaze over. They don’t care.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sigh. Bible says god lives in heaven.[/quote]

Verse.[/quote]

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/5-2.htm

See, chris, its much harder for you to make claims like this now that the internet exists. Years back, if I hadn’t read the whole bible and could tell you every verse, I would have to admit “I dont know”. Then you could make up some lie like “There is no verse that says so”

But, thanks to the intarwebs here, I do a quick search and… shiz-zam. There’s the first that clearly, clearly, clearly, in every possible version, says “God is in heaven.” So you cant now claim the verse doesn’t exist.

Let me guess, though, now you’ll split hairs about my saying “God lives in heaven” and the verse saying “God is in heaven”? right? Is the the cop out I’m in for?[/quote]

Uh no, you said God was in the sky. That verse does not say where or what heaven is or God. We know God is in heaven. You said sky, BIG difference.[/quote]

He asked what verse says god lives in heaven.

Secondly, I already explained how the bible says heaven is in the sky.

So, yes, the bible says God is in the sky.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

http://bible.cc/psalms/103-11.htm

“For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him”

What do we call the place above the earth, Pat? Oh, right. Sky.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-8.htm

Heaven above earth

http://bible.cc/exodus/20-4.htm

Heaven above

http://bible.cc/isaiah/55-9.htm

Heaven is higher than earth.

Guess we need an artistic interpretation of “higher” and “above” to avoid admitting that the bible says Heaven is in the sky?

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, first just wanted to say I appreciate the spirit of the discussion. I think you know me well enough by now to understand I don’t consider myself any more intelligent or informed than anyone else, especially when it comes to the most important and the most elusive questions of the universe. Everything I’m saying is based on my current limited understanding, in my own pursuit of truth.

In other words, please don’t take offense if I disagree on some points

If matter/energy have always existed, as the laws of thermodynamics assert, then those same laws have probably always existed as well. The laws are nothing more than a description of what matter/energy is and how it behaves. Nobody created the law of gravity; it is simply a description of how matter interacts with other matter.

The great minds you mention are logical, and because they are logical, they look at various theories that are possible based on current evidence, without claiming that a particular theory on the creation of the universe must be true. Do you see how that is very different from claiming a very high (98% or whatever) certainty that there must be a god, based on logic alone? [/quote]

Disagreements are fine, I appreciate the disagreements. They make me think and grow. It’s when they are based with insults and arrogance that I get cantankerous. I bite back. But no worries I enjoy the challenge and personally I think it’s fun…

I will address your points. Correct laws, at least to us, are a description of consistent behavior. The question is, is why does it behave that way and why is it consistent. Our ‘laws’ are little more than an observation, but there is a reason matter and energy behave that way.
The why and how are the metaphysical components. If you really think about it, every thing from the smallest spec to the largest object has a metaphysical component.

If you contest the existence of metaphysics, then I would request you just google it, there is so much info out there I couldn’t really do it justice. But if you under stand it, then you see that the metaphysics is the straw that stirs the drink; with out it nothing happens. Much like your body, the muscles move the weight, but the nervous system is the boss, the metaphysical component of things is the boss.

To your second point, what they are dealing with is logic alone. Stuff is just stuff, with out order, behavior, movement and change material is useless. The laws tell stuff what to do, scientists try to figure out and explain what they are doing, and they are using pure logic. That’s not to say they don’t do experiments and derive theories based on empirical things, but what they derive is based on logic. Some of them do claim their views on the origin of the universe is must be true.

The purity of the logic is unmistakable and pretty much infallible. What cannot be proved is that all the premises are 100% correct. It’s simply not possible and never will be, but there is sufficient evidence in every aspect of the universe that we know of, that cosmology is true.

To dispel it, you have to prove causation is not true. That randomness exists and that from nothing can come something. That is the necessary counter arguments. And if you look at it, that is exactely what many philosophers and scientists try to do. Philosophers can kinda sorta postulate such an idea. But there is no empirical evidence, not a shred of it anywhere for scientists.

[/quote]

Asking why gravity exists is like asking why amylase makes bananas taste sweet. There’s nothing supernatural going on here. Metaphysics is the study of what exists, and the qualities of what exists. It doesn’t imply anything supernatural whatsoever. To the contrary, it is the study and description of nature. If matter has always existed, then the nature of that matter has always existed along with it. It’s perfectly, unavoidably natural.

If you acknowledge that scientists are logical, don’t you also have to acknowledge that the theories derived from that logic are very possibly true? I just don’t get the argument that logic practically requires believing in a supernatural being, when the logical conclusions of these scientists don’t support believing in a supernatural being. Do you see what I’m saying?

On your last point, you don’t have to prove causation isn’t true. You just have to prove that matter and energy have always existed. And I think the laws of thermodynamics provide very compelling evidence in support of that theory. If something has always existed, it doesn’t require a cause.

Furthermore, think about this. You are claiming that something came from nothing, since you believe matter and energy were created ex nihilo. You’ve also suggested that the laws of the universe may be different under extreme conditions, like black holes. If you believe matter can be destroyed through a natural process, why don’t you believe matter can be created through a natural process? Maybe the natural laws of the universe allow something to be created from nothing, without requiring divine intervention. Maybe randomness is possible in those extreme conditions.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You claim God chooses some to save, and some to damn, directly CONTRARY to their will. >>>[/quote]He conquers their will by His grace, mercy and love so that the the most willing thing they will ever do is trust their lives to Him.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You also claim that, mysteriously beyond our comprehension but somehow consistent with logic, God gives us the ability to choose. >>>[/quote]Beyond our comprehension, but not His and that trust is the very definition of faith. Logic governed by supernatural faith, which is itself the gift of God, IS as logical as it gets by the definition of the God who is the creator of my mind and yours. You CANNOT see that from your side of the spiritual grave. Not because you are gay, but because you are dead. Homosexuality is but one manifestation of spiritual death. Trust me when I tell you one more time that apart from the righteousness of the risen Christ I am just as dead as you are.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< You can’t have it both ways. Logically, men either have free will or we don’t. You don’t get to claim people have choice, while in the same breath insisting that God is the one doing the choosing, despite what we actually choose or desire. >>>[/quote]Yes I can, God disagrees, and yes I do.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< When I called you on this, you accused me of worshiping at the altar of rationality, and of using sinful, fallen man logic. >>>[/quote]That wasn’t an accusation that was and is a declaration. [quote]forlife wrote:Somehow, it all makes sense to God, because His ways are higher than our ways. >>>[/quote]I wouldn’t state it exactly this way, but yep.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Classic example of the powerful, insidious biases I was talking about, where men have the capacity to dismiss all logical contradictions and objective facts in order to rationalize their beliefs.[/quote]Actually it’s when men are brought to life and forsake all actual logical contradictions and embrace authentic objectivity for the very first time. The standard is at last comprehensive, flawless, ultimately authoritative and entirely external to themselves on one hand and living within them on the other.
[/quote]

You just illustrated my point perfectly.

It’s fine if you find comfort in “forsaking all logical contradictions” in the name of your beliefs. But don’t pretend that your beliefs are grounded in logic. You just admitted that they aren’t.

Like I said, people willingly forsake logic and objective evidence in order to have confidence in their beliefs. It is classic confirmatory bias, and is well documented in psychological research. But confidence doesn’t translate to correctness. I know you’re perfectly convinced that your beliefs are grounded in reality, but it is an emotional and psychological smokescreen, derived from our deepest needs for comfort, purpose, and direction. [/quote]

Most people are not logical whether they are theists or not. Most people believe stuff and but cannot explain why. I don’t think it’s fair to put that on religious folks alone.
Plain and simple, most people just do, they don’t think about the big questions.

If I ever start talking about it, eyes just glaze over. They don’t care.[/quote]

I’ve said a few times now that I don’t put confirmatory bias on religious people alone. We are all subject to it, because we are all human. The best we can do is educate ourselves on our own biases, and accordingly take our current beliefs with a large grain of salt.

The problem is not with confirmatory bias. The problem is the confidence people have in their conclusions, based on that bias.

That’s why I don’t claim to know my beliefs are true, and it is why I distrust people like Tiribulus who do claim to know their beliefs are true. The difference between me and Tiribulus is that I recognize my fallibility and ignorance, while he covers his own biases in a smokescreen of faith.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Poof away the evidence? Who have you been hearing this shit from, because this isn’t sound theology at all. You should really stop talking to fundamentalist, because your understanding of Christian theology isn’t even in left field anymore, it is in the bleachers.
[/quote]

Really Chris? Really??

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/bible_contradictions?id=4254835&pageNo=2

Read that page. Note where I ask:

How about that flaming sword guarding the tree of eternal life “from every way”? How come THAT hasnt been found now that we can see 100% of the earth?

And another poster on T nation replies:

The flaming sword, since I presume it was a divine sword made from God, vanished after it was no longer necessary. I presume the Garden of Eden took a while to decay naturally. When it did, God most likely removed it or destroyed it.

Ya ya I know…how convenient.

Thing is I can say that about may things you believe.

And then read the fucking part where, four posts below the reply to me, YOUR NAME APPEARS.

So you obviously read the thread. Yet you’re sitting here now asking me “who I’ve been hearing this shit from”??

Seriously, Chris?[/quote]

I was talking about the Bible and the congregation of Israel, which I corrected what I said about the Bible to clarify after I was corrected about the terms applicable to the Bible. I do not remember talking about a flaming sword. I do know that there was a Cherubim (your favorite angel) outside the gates of the Garden.

Well, I figured you heard it from some strange source. Don’t take everything Forbes says as something I believe, because he doesn’t even believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church, because some guys 1500 years after Jesus said it wasn’t.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, first just wanted to say I appreciate the spirit of the discussion. I think you know me well enough by now to understand I don’t consider myself any more intelligent or informed than anyone else, especially when it comes to the most important and the most elusive questions of the universe. Everything I’m saying is based on my current limited understanding, in my own pursuit of truth.

In other words, please don’t take offense if I disagree on some points

If matter/energy have always existed, as the laws of thermodynamics assert, then those same laws have probably always existed as well. The laws are nothing more than a description of what matter/energy is and how it behaves. Nobody created the law of gravity; it is simply a description of how matter interacts with other matter.

The great minds you mention are logical, and because they are logical, they look at various theories that are possible based on current evidence, without claiming that a particular theory on the creation of the universe must be true. Do you see how that is very different from claiming a very high (98% or whatever) certainty that there must be a god, based on logic alone? [/quote]

Disagreements are fine, I appreciate the disagreements. They make me think and grow. It’s when they are based with insults and arrogance that I get cantankerous. I bite back. But no worries I enjoy the challenge and personally I think it’s fun…

I will address your points. Correct laws, at least to us, are a description of consistent behavior. The question is, is why does it behave that way and why is it consistent. Our ‘laws’ are little more than an observation, but there is a reason matter and energy behave that way.
The why and how are the metaphysical components. If you really think about it, every thing from the smallest spec to the largest object has a metaphysical component.

If you contest the existence of metaphysics, then I would request you just google it, there is so much info out there I couldn’t really do it justice. But if you under stand it, then you see that the metaphysics is the straw that stirs the drink; with out it nothing happens. Much like your body, the muscles move the weight, but the nervous system is the boss, the metaphysical component of things is the boss.

To your second point, what they are dealing with is logic alone. Stuff is just stuff, with out order, behavior, movement and change material is useless. The laws tell stuff what to do, scientists try to figure out and explain what they are doing, and they are using pure logic. That’s not to say they don’t do experiments and derive theories based on empirical things, but what they derive is based on logic. Some of them do claim their views on the origin of the universe is must be true.

The purity of the logic is unmistakable and pretty much infallible. What cannot be proved is that all the premises are 100% correct. It’s simply not possible and never will be, but there is sufficient evidence in every aspect of the universe that we know of, that cosmology is true.

To dispel it, you have to prove causation is not true. That randomness exists and that from nothing can come something. That is the necessary counter arguments. And if you look at it, that is exactely what many philosophers and scientists try to do. Philosophers can kinda sorta postulate such an idea. But there is no empirical evidence, not a shred of it anywhere for scientists.

[/quote]

Asking why gravity exists is like asking why amylase makes bananas taste sweet. There’s nothing supernatural going on here. Metaphysics is the study of what exists, and the qualities of what exists. It doesn’t imply anything supernatural whatsoever. To the contrary, it is the study and description of nature. If matter has always existed, then the nature of that matter has always existed along with it. It’s perfectly, unavoidably natural.

If you acknowledge that scientists are logical, don’t you also have to acknowledge that the theories derived from that logic are very possibly true? I just don’t get the argument that logic practically requires believing in a supernatural being, when the logical conclusions of these scientists don’t support believing in a supernatural being. Do you see what I’m saying?

On your last point, you don’t have to prove causation isn’t true. You just have to prove that matter and energy have always existed. And I think the laws of thermodynamics provide very compelling evidence in support of that theory. If something has always existed, it doesn’t require a cause.

Furthermore, think about this. You are claiming that something came from nothing, since you believe matter and energy were created ex nihilo. You’ve also suggested that the laws of the universe may be different under extreme conditions, like black holes. If you believe matter can be destroyed through a natural process, why don’t you believe matter can be created through a natural process? Maybe the natural laws of the universe allow something to be created from nothing, without requiring divine intervention. Maybe randomness is possible in those extreme conditions.[/quote]

Crap I am losing you…
Metaphysics is the study of what exists, non-physically. It all goes back to Plato’s forms. Before you can make a chair you have to have a plan. The plan is the boss or you have no chair, just sticks. Secondly, I never said supernatural, nor do I believe that. It is stunningly natural. If the prime mover is necessary for the universe to exist, then it is natural.

There are two types of logical arguments deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is a complete argument, there are no holes in it and nothing can be added to it to strengthen or weaken it. Math is deductive reasoning 2+2=4 will always be true, in any dimension, space, other world, etc. There is no case in which it cannot be true. Likewise, the cosmological form, from where ever it starts, always ends up the same way. Uncaused-cause necessarily solves it and nothing else does. Nothing else can or will, its logically impossible.
Scientists do the latter, inductive reasoning. They draw a statistically significant conclusion based on observation and limited data set. That is why empiricism is weaker than a priori reasoning.

I think you are thinking of existence linearly, I see it as layers of existence. You have to take time out of it, it only confuses the point. Eternally existing, does not change the fact it was caused by something. Where did matter and energy come from? Where did that which begot it come from? Bo not think of it temporaly. Think of it contingency. It is as dependent on something as material is dependent on it.

What you cannot say is that it just is. We already know that it requires quarks, bosons, lie groups, etc. etc. So it clearly isn’t a ‘just is’

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sigh. Bible says god lives in heaven.[/quote]

Verse.[/quote]

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/5-2.htm

See, chris, its much harder for you to make claims like this now that the internet exists. Years back, if I hadn’t read the whole bible and could tell you every verse, I would have to admit “I dont know”. Then you could make up some lie like “There is no verse that says so”

But, thanks to the intarwebs here, I do a quick search and… shiz-zam. There’s the first that clearly, clearly, clearly, in every possible version, says “God is in heaven.” So you cant now claim the verse doesn’t exist.

Let me guess, though, now you’ll split hairs about my saying “God lives in heaven” and the verse saying “God is in heaven”? right? Is the the cop out I’m in for?[/quote]

Wow…a little bit of a straw man and ad hominem. Clam down, I was asking because I had no clue which verse you were talking about. If you hadn’t known the verse, I would have just chosen a verse myself, but figured you would like to use your own verse so to know that I am not trying to trick you.

Theologically speaking:

Is God omnipresence?

Did God create heaven and earth?

If you said yes to both of those, then we can say that God IS in Heaven and IS on earth. His omnipresence is because he is not restricted by space and time. So, that would mean God is also outside of universe, because the universe is plainly the expansion of space and time.

Yes, God is Heaven, but God has never been hypothesized to be a physical being. The Jews forbid the drawing of Yahweh, because there was nothing in the world that could represent a being with no known physical body, especially like God. Not until the Christians did we have a physical body, before God was so massive, so infinite, the human mind could not comprehend it. The Jews never assumed that Yahweh was just in Heaven.

To your verse, it is kind of proof text, but that is fine Christians do it all the time. The only thing I can really say is contextual wise, the verse is telling to be cautious of words, and the whole chapter contextual wise is talking about, “Caution in words. Vows are to be paid. Riches are often pernicious: the moderate use of them is the gift of God.”

I never denied that God was in Heaven, just never supposed that God was a physical being.