[quote]smh23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Have legs now.[/quote]Me too actually.
I’ll read the verses.[/quote]I’m interested in your response regardless of what it is. It’s a simple principle. I’ll explain it in any case anyway. Legs was brutal as usual. I’m gonna feel it tomorrow night. As usual.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< I find the concept of an infinite regress (a causal chain leading back into the past without end) exactly as difficult to comprehend/support as the concept of a creator. >>>[/quote]The one thing you will NEVER find is that you are a creature of the God of the bible, morally accountable to Him and utterly unable to settle that account yourself. ANY option, but that will be embraced first. At least if I’m myself to take the bible seriously.[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< too many atheists ignore the fact that the implications of their own beliefs are as incompatible with logic as are those of the theists.[/quote]I’ll tip my hat to ya for this one. That’s not the way I would phrase it, but that IS the case. This unthinking and arrogant assertion by unbelievers that they’re somehow THE logical ones is truly comical. EVERYBODY believes EVERYTHING they do by faith. Everybody. Everything. I’ll say yet again. It’s only a matter of what in.
To humbly quote myself again to save some typing:[quote]2+2 does not equal 4 without God because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. “God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount the very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him”. They can’t help it.
Atheists jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.
Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.
It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image, fractured though it is in sin.
THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place.[/quote] [quote]
orion wrote:<<< Most people are not smart[/quote]I must disagree. Most people are intellectually lazy and undisciplined and hence very sloppy. Even the VERY VERY smart ones are utterly clueless regarding the foundations of their own thought and are not too often interested in finding that out.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Most people cannot be smart.
Intelligence as well as street smarts is distributed in a bell curve.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:Me, I just think it’s funny when someone (even HH) [pretends to] takes issue with something as trivial as the virgin birth. Wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss God creating the universe out of nothing, if we wanna discuss mind-boggling stuff? If a supernatural being can through thought/word create a universe, what’s the big deal about making a puny human preggo? Srsly. [/quote]Ya really beat me to this and that was the exact example I had in mind. And actually this IS a nutshell representation of the very epistemology I’m always harping on about. Once you have an utterly non contingent almighty and all powerful God? One whose signature is strobing from every particle of reality I might add. The rest takes care of itself.
From the commanding of light and matter to exist from nothing to 2+2 equaling 4 and anything and everything in between. Like a virgin birth. I do not merely believe in this God’s existence with more certainty than I believe in yours, but I know Him more intimately than I know myself. If He says "I have conceived my eternal Son in the womb of virgin woman so that He could be born a divine man for the purpose of reconciling you to myself? My response is, “THANK YOOOOO my blessed holy Father”. The question of how is arrogant unbelief. I don’t care how. I am just filled with grateful adoration that He did.
[/quote]
Can always read some Neil Turok/ Stephen Hawkings…‘Endless Universe beyond the big bang’ and all that.
Perhaps something has always existed. Haven’t read it yet so I cannot make any in depth comments, have just heard him explain some of his broader ideas.
[/quote]
I find the concept of an infinite regress (a causal chain leading back into the past without end) exactly as difficult to comprehend/support as the concept of a creator.
I’m not saying “that’s definitely not what happened.” I just think that for too many atheists ignore the fact that the implications of their own beliefs are as incompatible with logic as are those of the theists.[/quote]
The problem with the infinite regress is that it is impossible. It’s not the infinity part, it’s the regress. You cannot regress infinitely without begging the question. No matter how you slice it, you end up with something being a function of itself and that is logically impossible. That’s why it can’t happen. It’s a slave to the logical process. Inifinity is a repetitive process and regresses are not repetitive. Eventually you break down to something or nothing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…At the end, we’re never gonna know…
[/quote]
I believe the opposite.
[/quote]
I agree. In the end, we will all know, one way or another.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…At the end, we’re never gonna know…
[/quote]
I believe the opposite.
[/quote]
I agree. In the end, we will all know, one way or another.[/quote]
If you’re wrong you won’t find out.
Can’t think when you’re dead. Only find out if you’re right.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…At the end, we’re never gonna know…
[/quote]
I believe the opposite.
[/quote]
I agree. In the end, we will all know, one way or another.[/quote]
If you’re wrong you won’t find out.
Can’t think when you’re dead. Only find out if you’re right.[/quote]
Isn’t that knowing?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…At the end, we’re never gonna know…
[/quote]
I believe the opposite.
[/quote]
I agree. In the end, we will all know, one way or another.[/quote]
If you’re wrong you won’t find out.
Can’t think when you’re dead. Only find out if you’re right.[/quote]
Isn’t that knowing?[/quote]
No.
In order to know something you have to have a conscience brain and able to absorb the information.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:Me, I just think it’s funny when someone (even HH) [pretends to] takes issue with something as trivial as the virgin birth. Wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss God creating the universe out of nothing, if we wanna discuss mind-boggling stuff? If a supernatural being can through thought/word create a universe, what’s the big deal about making a puny human preggo? Srsly. [/quote]Ya really beat me to this and that was the exact example I had in mind. And actually this IS a nutshell representation of the very epistemology I’m always harping on about. Once you have an utterly non contingent almighty and all powerful God? One whose signature is strobing from every particle of reality I might add. The rest takes care of itself.
From the commanding of light and matter to exist from nothing to 2+2 equaling 4 and anything and everything in between. Like a virgin birth. I do not merely believe in this God’s existence with more certainty than I believe in yours, but I know Him more intimately than I know myself. If He says "I have conceived my eternal Son in the womb of virgin woman so that He could be born a divine man for the purpose of reconciling you to myself? My response is, “THANK YOOOOO my blessed holy Father”. The question of how is arrogant unbelief. I don’t care how. I am just filled with grateful adoration that He did.
[/quote]
Can always read some Neil Turok/ Stephen Hawkings…‘Endless Universe beyond the big bang’ and all that.
Perhaps something has always existed. Haven’t read it yet so I cannot make any in depth comments, have just heard him explain some of his broader ideas.
[/quote]
I find the concept of an infinite regress (a causal chain leading back into the past without end) exactly as difficult to comprehend/support as the concept of a creator.
I’m not saying “that’s definitely not what happened.” I just think that for too many atheists ignore the fact that the implications of their own beliefs are as incompatible with logic as are those of the theists.[/quote]
The problem with the infinite regress is that it is impossible. It’s not the infinity part, it’s the regress. You cannot regress infinitely without begging the question. No matter how you slice it, you end up with something being a function of itself and that is logically impossible. That’s why it can’t happen. It’s a slave to the logical process. Inifinity is a repetitive process and regresses are not repetitive. Eventually you break down to something or nothing.[/quote]
The phenomenon of entropy also casts doubt in the infinite regress.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
People continuing to believe in Fairy Tales…blows me away.
Even IF the virgin birth is real it still means that Mary was RAPED and by definition Jesus is a
BASTARD child since Mary and “god” (who gave birth to “himself”) where not married…religion needs
to die ![/quote]
How have you been, Dirk?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
People continuing to believe in Fairy Tales…blows me away.
Even IF the virgin birth is real it still means that Mary was RAPED and by definition Jesus is a
BASTARD child since Mary and “god” (who gave birth to “himself”) where not married…religion needs
to die ![/quote]
Logic and rationality…how unique!! :)[/quote]
By logic you mean reductionism and straw men?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
People continuing to believe in Fairy Tales…blows me away.
Even IF the virgin birth is real it still means that Mary was RAPED and by definition Jesus is a
BASTARD child since Mary and “god” (who gave birth to “himself”) where not married…religion needs
to die ![/quote]
You believe in fairy tales too.
Yours are just new and exciting fairy tales and are not recognized as such by you or others.
Since you are a child of the French Revolution I could even tell you what they are.
Anyhow, what is demonstrated here is the tendency of the post Enlightenment era to dismiss centuries of accumulated wisdom because some aspects of it are rather implausible. [/quote]
When the probability of this stuff equates to Russell’s teapot in orbit, time to dump the stuff.
[/quote]
All of it?
Or just that specific part?
Because if you dump all of it you might just end up with pseudo rational quackery to fill the void in your soul.[/quote]
Trib, you’re getting to this Orion dude. Invite him to the 313 to talk in tongues with all your mates.
Trouble with you blokes is that you don’t go in for probabilities. Why does religion have to be an either-or?
Your religions are probably less than 1% probable of being meaningful. They’re not worth the odds.
Seriously though…you guys doubt most everything but if a book from 1700 years ago says that a virgin will give birth…“Well, YEAH, let me worship that!!!”
To borrow from Pat: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL x 10^billion
[/quote]
is it me or does HH sound like he was taken over by an Ozzie?
This had to have been HH:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…At the end, we’re never gonna know…
[/quote]
I believe the opposite.
[/quote]
I agree. In the end, we will all know, one way or another.[/quote]
If you’re wrong you won’t find out.
Can’t think when you’re dead. Only find out if you’re right.[/quote]
Isn’t that knowing?[/quote]
No.
In order to know something you have to have a conscience brain and able to absorb the information.
[/quote]
That’s debatable actually. And technically you should be more worried if I am right than I need to be if you are right. If you are right, at worst I wasted some time in my life. If I am right, you have to answer for why you chose to ignore what is available to know and understand God. I have my own answers to give, don’t get me wrong, but I won’t have to answer that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
People continuing to believe in Fairy Tales…blows me away.
Even IF the virgin birth is real it still means that Mary was RAPED and by definition Jesus is a
BASTARD child since Mary and “god” (who gave birth to “himself”) where not married…religion needs
to die ![/quote]
You believe in fairy tales too.
Yours are just new and exciting fairy tales and are not recognized as such by you or others.
Since you are a child of the French Revolution I could even tell you what they are.
Anyhow, what is demonstrated here is the tendency of the post Enlightenment era to dismiss centuries of accumulated wisdom because some aspects of it are rather implausible. [/quote]
When the probability of this stuff equates to Russell’s teapot in orbit, time to dump the stuff.
[/quote]
All of it?
Or just that specific part?
Because if you dump all of it you might just end up with pseudo rational quackery to fill the void in your soul.[/quote]
Trib, you’re getting to this Orion dude. Invite him to the 313 to talk in tongues with all your mates.
Trouble with you blokes is that you don’t go in for probabilities. Why does religion have to be an either-or?
Your religions are probably less than 1% probable of being meaningful. They’re not worth the odds.
Seriously though…you guys doubt most everything but if a book from 1700 years ago says that a virgin will give birth…“Well, YEAH, let me worship that!!!”
To borrow from Pat: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL x 10^billion
[/quote]
is it me or does HH sound like he was taken over by an Ozzie? [/quote]
How dare you insult Ozzy!
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:Me, I just think it’s funny when someone (even HH) [pretends to] takes issue with something as trivial as the virgin birth. Wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss God creating the universe out of nothing, if we wanna discuss mind-boggling stuff? If a supernatural being can through thought/word create a universe, what’s the big deal about making a puny human preggo? Srsly. [/quote]Ya really beat me to this and that was the exact example I had in mind. And actually this IS a nutshell representation of the very epistemology I’m always harping on about. Once you have an utterly non contingent almighty and all powerful God? One whose signature is strobing from every particle of reality I might add. The rest takes care of itself.
From the commanding of light and matter to exist from nothing to 2+2 equaling 4 and anything and everything in between. Like a virgin birth. I do not merely believe in this God’s existence with more certainty than I believe in yours, but I know Him more intimately than I know myself. If He says "I have conceived my eternal Son in the womb of virgin woman so that He could be born a divine man for the purpose of reconciling you to myself? My response is, “THANK YOOOOO my blessed holy Father”. The question of how is arrogant unbelief. I don’t care how. I am just filled with grateful adoration that He did.
[/quote]
Can always read some Neil Turok/ Stephen Hawkings…‘Endless Universe beyond the big bang’ and all that.
Perhaps something has always existed. Haven’t read it yet so I cannot make any in depth comments, have just heard him explain some of his broader ideas.
[/quote]
I find the concept of an infinite regress (a causal chain leading back into the past without end) exactly as difficult to comprehend/support as the concept of a creator.
I’m not saying “that’s definitely not what happened.” I just think that for too many atheists ignore the fact that the implications of their own beliefs are as incompatible with logic as are those of the theists.[/quote]
The problem with the infinite regress is that it is impossible. It’s not the infinity part, it’s the regress. You cannot regress infinitely without begging the question. No matter how you slice it, you end up with something being a function of itself and that is logically impossible. That’s why it can’t happen. It’s a slave to the logical process. Inifinity is a repetitive process and regresses are not repetitive. Eventually you break down to something or nothing.[/quote]
The phenomenon of entropy also casts doubt in the infinite regress.[/quote]
Nah, entropy is not a problem at all. First of all, entropy, it’s purest understanding deals with isolated systems, which, if this universe is the only one that is, or ever was, is not an isolated system. Closed maybe, isolated it is not.
Then there is the question of entropy itself, since it’s not only a ‘thing that if exists, exists’ it is dependent on other things for it’s existence, like energy itself. So it’s not an uncaused object, and it’s metaphysical. It’s a law, it has no physical presence but is a commanding metaphysical force. Energy has no choice but to obey the law.
[quote]pat wrote:
That’s debatable actually. And technically you should be more worried if I am right than I need to be if you are right. If you are right, at worst I wasted some time in my life. If I am right, you have to answer for why you chose to ignore what is available to know and understand God. I have my own answers to give, don’t get me wrong, but I won’t have to answer that.[/quote]
Not sure how you can debate that. How can one know something without the preseence of working brain?
And you’re wrong on your second point as well. If another religion is correct and you are wrong, then you’ll be pissing off god more by being blasphmous. So you’re not just potentially wasting your life, you are potentially angering god greatly.
If you’re goal is to hedge your bets I’d suggest you convert to Islam. From what I’ve heard their version of hell is much worse than the CHristian version.
[quote]pat wrote:
Nah, entropy is not a problem at all. First of all, entropy, it’s purest understanding deals with isolated systems, which, if this universe is the only one that is, or ever was, is not an isolated system. Closed maybe, isolated it is not.
Then there is the question of entropy itself, since it’s not only a ‘thing that if exists, exists’ it is dependent on other things for it’s existence, like energy itself. So it’s not an uncaused object, and it’s metaphysical. It’s a law, it has no physical presence but is a commanding metaphysical force. Energy has no choice but to obey the law. [/quote]
I think you mistook me: I’m not saying that entropy poses a threat to atheism because it would have had to be “caused.”
Instead it’s the argument that closed systems move inevitably toward equal heat distribution (if you put a cube of ice in a cup of coffee and wait, the resultant mixture will be a liquid of even heat distribution barring any outside influence). The universe, as a closed system, could not have existed for a regressive eternity because that would have given the necessary tendency for heat to be distributed evenly an infinite amount of time to work it’s magic and therefore a 100% chance of success. Since heat is still distributed throughout the universe unevenly, the universe must have had a finite beginning.
I’ve read compelling objections to this argument as well. But it certainly is interesting, and in my mind it puts the infinite regress at a further disadvantage.