Why Did God Create......

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
981

[quote]kamui wrote:
here you affirm something about physics, biology, cosmology

and you do it to explain and justify “human cognition” :

but you can’t affirm anything about physics, biology, cosmology, our brain, your hands, etc, if you don’t already have a valid and solid definition of truth.

because if you don’t already have a valid and solid definition of truth (an epistemology) you are absolutely unable to make the difference between a good theory and a bad one.
Without an epistemology (and an ontology), you can not even know you have an hand and a brain, or that the universe exists.

it doesn’t mean that you have to believe in God. But it definitely means that epistemology must be developed first, without any reference to the actual content of actual sciences. Because no amount of physics will ever give you the smallest understanding of metaphysic. And without an understanding of metaphysics, your physics will never be more than a sand castle.

i’m not saying that you’re wrong, i’m just saying that you will need more than scientism to fight against believers.
a phenomenology, maybe.
[/quote]

I get what you’re saying, there are two sides to this coin. The objective has no depth without the subjective, I agree. But I would argue that the very nature of the subjective makes it a flaw to root it in the objective. I know that I can know things, but nothing other than internal reflection can absolutely confirm this and you’re left with a cluster fuck of logical fallacies when you try to make subjective truth out to be objective truth.

If religion was left to the subjective, I would have no problem with it. I have no problem with the Tao Te Ching for this reason. The same can’t be said about Christianity as it is constantly making itself out to be the one objective truth.

I apologize for comparing you to Pat before.

982

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
ok, i will do it again.

what Tirib (and many others) are trying to show you is this :

if you don’t acknowledge a “first principle” (which believers equate with a First Cause, ie a Creator God) then nothing is certain, at all.
because an epistemology need a solid starting point, and this “solid starting point” can’t be found in our reason alone. because our reason alone is finite.

for a believer 2+2=4 is a universal and absolute fact, designed by God in His Ominiscience and Omnibenevolence.
For a non-believer it’s, at best, a convention of language and/or the tautological conclusion that appears in the contingent and fragile brain of an homo sapiens when some cells connects.

The price you pay for disbelieving in God is that you can no more know the world. You can only believe in it, without any true certainty, because your sceptical epistemology is now relativist and probabilist.

It’s not a problem per se, if, like forlife, you fully accept to live your life in a relative and uncertain world. but that means you can no more use the “ololol, you believe without proof, idiot” against believers. Because we ALL believe without proof, and we atheist perhaps more often (but with less intensity) than them.

simply put :
the sword of scepticism is a double-edged one

[/quote]

At best a tautological conclusion? It IS a tautological conclusion whether it was set down by God or the result of our emergent ability to conceptualize.
[/quote]
No.

The whole “first cause” issue doesn’t help anybody because, whether you believe in God you not you require a “causeless cause” for there to be anything. You say it’s God, I say hyper-dimensional activity as per M-theory.

The biggest problem with this argument, however, is that I’m asking you for proof of YOUR God. It’s entirely possible that there is a hyper-dimension being that consciously created our universe, but do you have any evidence? Furthermore, have you any evidence it’s specifically YOUR God and not anyone else’s?
[/quote]
Sounds like you’ve been doing your diligent study of the atheist propaganda websites again… This horseshit analysis seems very similar to counter claims I have read on said those websites.

Demanding evidence makes it clear you don’t understand the argument, at all. If you did the answer to this question would be self evident as would the ridiculous notion of proving ‘your God’ over any one else’s. The answer is in the argument itself. We’ve discussed this to death in the ‘Physics of the After life’ thread. As I have warned you are repeating debunked notions. It would do you well to peruse at least the last 7 pages of that thread so you wouldn’t continue with those repetitions… The wheel exists, there’s no need to reinvent it…Physics of the Afterlife - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation

[quote]
This universe appears rather random and emergent, I just don’t see any reason to assume this was planned, let alone planned by your God as opposed to any other God told about in history.[/quote]

Explain how the universe is random…

983

[quote]pat wrote:

Sounds like you’ve been doing your diligent study of the atheist propaganda websites again… This horseshit analysis seems very similar to counter claims I have read on said those websites.

Demanding evidence makes it clear you don’t understand the argument, at all. If you did the answer to this question would be self evident as would the ridiculous notion of proving ‘your God’ over any one else’s. The answer is in the argument itself. We’ve discussed this to death in the ‘Physics of the After life’ thread. As I have warned you are repeating debunked notions. It would do you well to peruse at least the last 7 pages of that thread so you wouldn’t continue with those repetitions… The wheel exists, there’s no need to reinvent it…http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/physics_of_the_afterlife

[/quote]

If you don’t want to go through this then fine, don’t. This wasn’t your conversation. You don’t have to throw your 2 cents into every single fucking thing everyone says everywhere, Pat.

Well, for one, it’s enormous. What need if there for all this space?

986

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< As I’ve already said, numbers not rooted in reality are simply concepts. The concept of 2 doubled must equal 4 by definition. It’s tautologically true. [/quote]What is a number? A concept? A notion like doubled? Equal? A tautology? How bout the definition of definition? (I should have copied and pasted from Elder Forlife’s turn at this.) From whence do you ultimately derive even one of these?

Trust me. You have never been where I’m taking you. I am not arguing for the possible or even overwhelmingly probable existence of some abstract first cause people call God. I am declaring the preeminently certain existence of the triune God of Christianity who eternally IS as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not just any generic version of him either, but the unstoppable, all governing, all defining, all powerful, almighty, utterly non contingent, self existent and sufficient, thrice HOLY God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Who in the beginning forced light and matter to emerge from nothing by fiat command. Who created you in His image and is hence entirely unimpressed by your opinion. (mine too btw)

The God who declares the end from the beginning and calls all things not yet as though they already were. In short, the God before whom every actual and possible object of knowledge of any kind on any level is laid perfectly bare because HE DEFINES THEM ONE AND ALL. Make no mistake. I am the only person in this forum for the moment openly defending this God.

Now again:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< As I’ve already said, numbers not rooted in reality are simply concepts. The concept of 2 doubled must equal 4 by definition. It’s tautologically true. [/quote]What is a number? A concept? A notion like doubled? Equal? A tautology? How bout the definition of definition? (I should have copied and pasted from Elder Forlife’s turn at this.) From whence do you ultimately derive the audacity to act as if you have the right to hold any view whatsoever on even one of these? Where? You can always just cry total agnosticism right now and save yourself abuncha trouble.

987

I think he was suggesting that the universe is way too big for its stated purpose (human life), and that all this useless space doesn’t speak in favor of an intelligent design.

988

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< you’re are trying to derive an epistemology from a cosmology.
and you can’t.

it’s a circular reasoning.
[/quote]Correct. Epistemology is not derived from anything, everything else is derived from IT, including cosmology.

989

[quote]kamui wrote:
I think he was suggesting that the universe is way too big for its stated purpose (human life), and that all this useless space doesn’t speak in favor of an intelligent design. [/quote]Human life is not the purpose for the universe. Bringing glory, honor and praise to the it’s creator is. For that it is and always will be at any given microsecond just the right size.

990

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Well, for one, it’s enormous. What need if there for all this space?

[/quote]

Holy shit. Enormous = random?

As lame as it gets, Tig.
[/quote]

I know you know what I’m saying =p

If the universe was created to put us in so we could worship our creator, why all the extra space?

It’s almost as though the universe naturally emerged and in it’s vastness it was only a matter of time before cognitive beings evolved. =/

I suppose I should just be grateful you came out with something more mature than simply quoting this and saying “just like your mom’s vag!”

991

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< As I’ve already said, numbers not rooted in reality are simply concepts. The concept of 2 doubled must equal 4 by definition. It’s tautologically true. [/quote]What is a number? A concept? A notion like doubled? Equal? A tautology? How bout the definition of definition? (I should have copied and pasted from Elder Forlife’s turn at this.) From whence do you ultimately derive even one of these?

Trust me. You have never been where I’m taking you. I am not arguing for the possible or even overwhelmingly probable existence of some abstract first cause people call God. I am declaring the preeminently certain existence of the triune God of Christianity who eternally IS as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not just any generic version of him either, but the unstoppable, all governing, all defining, all powerful, almighty, utterly non contingent, self existent and sufficient, thrice HOLY God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Who in the beginning forced light and matter to emerge from nothing by fiat command. Who created you in His image and is hence entirely unimpressed by your opinion. (mine too btw)

The God who declares the end from the beginning and calls all things not yet as though they already were. In short, the God before whom every actual and possible object of knowledge of any kind on any level is laid perfectly bare because HE DEFINES THEM ONE AND ALL. Make no mistake. I am the only person in this forum for the moment openly defending this God.

Now again:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< As I’ve already said, numbers not rooted in reality are simply concepts. The concept of 2 doubled must equal 4 by definition. It’s tautologically true. [/quote]What is a number? A concept? A notion like doubled? Equal? A tautology? How bout the definition of definition? (I should have copied and pasted from Elder Forlife’s turn at this.) From whence do you ultimately derive the audacity to act as if you have the right to hold any view whatsoever on even one of these? Where? You can always just cry total agnosticism right now and save yourself abuncha trouble.

[/quote]

Well, you win the prize for most passion pumped into a post.

So, if I’m understanding you, you claim God exists because we can hold concepts in our minds and that is only possible if a God set the parameters for cognition, amiright?

How do you know the parameters for cognition require a God? It seems just as likely to me that cognition evolved. Actually, this seems more likely because we can look at varying levels of cognition amongst animals as their brains get progressively more complex.

996

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I think he was suggesting that the universe is way too big for its stated purpose (human life), and that all this useless space doesn’t speak in favor of an intelligent design. [/quote]Human life is not the purpose for the universe. Bringing glory, honor and praise to the it’s creator is. For that it is and always will be at any given microsecond just the right size.
[/quote]

So… vast nothingness brings glory, honor and praise to God?

997

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Well, for one, it’s enormous. What need if there for all this space?

[/quote]

Holy shit. Enormous = random?

As lame as it gets, Tig.
[/quote]

I know you know what I’m saying =p

If the universe was created to put us in so we could worship our creator, why all the extra space?

It’s almost as though the universe naturally emerged and in it’s vastness it was only a matter of time before cognitive beings evolved. =/

I suppose I should just be grateful you came out with something more mature than simply quoting this and saying “just like your mom’s vag!”[/quote]

You should be grateful I engage you at all.[/quote]

Right because you’re just soooo much more engaging and thought provoking than the other religious people debating here. *rolls eyes

999

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

…I am the only person in this forum for the moment openly defending this God.

[/quote]

Hey Lone Ranger, be careful with your chest thumping, you might break a rib.

You spent many an hour passively sitting on the bench by your own choice in the creation/evolution threads, my friend. In fact, I never saw you show up once even for the coin toss.

For the most part I was the only running back that ever touched the ball.
[/quote]You and I do not worship the same God. You are the most reprehensible specimen of God hating blasphemous pagan idolater I have ever personally encountered. Every atheistic God denying rank heathen on this site combined does not even begin to bring the reproach and dishonor on the holy name of the spotless lamb of God like you do. As things stand now Elder Forlife will have it much easier at the judgment seat of Christ. Pick somebody else for your Satanic team.

1000

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

…I am the only person in this forum for the moment openly defending this God.

[/quote]

Hey Lone Ranger, be careful with your chest thumping, you might break a rib.

You spent many an hour passively sitting on the bench by your own choice in the creation/evolution threads, my friend. In fact, I never saw you show up once even for the coin toss.

For the most part I was the only running back that ever touched the ball.
[/quote]You and I do not worship the same God. You are the most reprehensible specimen of God hating blasphemous pagan idolater I have ever personally encountered. Every atheistic God denying rank heathen on this site combined does not even begin to bring the reproach and dishonor on the holy name of the spotless lamb of God like you do. As things stand now Elder Forlife will have it much easier at the judgment seat of Christ. Pick somebody else for your Satanic team.
[/quote]

Oh my.