-->
@Mopac
Perfecto. So why are you trying to communicate this "experience" with words?The faith is not rational apprehension, it is experience.
It would seem to be an exercise in futility.
Why are there hardly any theists on internet debate platforms?
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@3RU7AL
I am not trying to describe this experience with words.
I may hope that others would experience the faith for themselves.
Faith is not simply belief for us, it is as I said, an experience. The west argues in their unenlightened theology about faith and works. We Orthodox understand how they are united in faithfulness.
Believing in thanksgiving is not the same as being thankful.
-->
@secularmerlin
I speak not of gnosis, but epignosis, which is experiential.
-->
@Mopac
Your experience does not inform mine.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm an irreligious theist. I believe that a prime, eternal consciousness created the universe. The universe having an origin from consciousness is the best explanation of what caused the Big Bang, the fine-tunedness of the universe, among other things.
-->
@secularmerlin
We preach a personal relationship with God. I can not have a relationship with God for you.
-->
@Mopac
I cannot have a relationship with a being that I cannot confirm the existence of. The next move, it would seem, is god's (if such a being even exists).
-->
@secularmerlin
The Truth exists, or it isn't The Truth.
-->
@Fallaneze
What do you think we are to this platform?a prime, eternal consciousness
-->
@Mopac
That is a circular argument. It doesn't add anything to.our discourse.
It stands to reason that someone who doesn't believe in God would be more interested in debate. After all, if you maintain that there is no God, reality is whatever you can get away with. Sounds like a rhetorician's game.
I maintain that debating with people who have adopted a position that literally is a denial of Truth itself does not tend to be fun. If anything, it is truly a path of sorrows. If you love these people, you can't help but pity them for they are very sick.
-->
@Fallaneze
I have faith and trust that your concept of God is a placebo effect for you.
I have faith{ trust } that the oncoming vehicle will not cross over the center line and collide with me. However, I know it can and does happen.
However, I also know that peoples beliefs can change --more so if their beliefs have no basis in truth to begin with--- ergo persons placebo effects can change also i.e. placebo effect that worked yesterday may not work tommorrow, depending on ones point-of-view.
Minimal consciousness can have no less than two points of view..... me { O } and you { O } via occupied space
And in addition a minimal line-of-relationship ex gravity ( ) if not also dark energy )( must exist between those two and that line-of-relationship is most likely a geodesic Space (O)(O) lines-of-relationship.
An then there is a fourth aspect and that is the background in which the above set of three exist.
.........background space....(O)(O).......background space....
-->
@Mopac
My entire argument is that you don't get to just make stuff up and call it reality you have to demonstrate it. I just can't believe in things that can't be proven the way that you can.
-->
@secularmerlin
Your argument is stupid.
-->
@Mopac
So it's stupid to say that people don't just get to make things up and call them Reality? You should be able to just use make believe to form a worldview?
I mean I suppose you can but that is no way to get to the truth.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not interested in what you have to say. It would be better not to pollute 2 topics.
-->
@Mopac
You pollute a lot of threads why draw a line now ?
-->
@Fallaneze
What do they have to debate... bottom line you corner them... it's faith. They know what's true for them... and that's real. What they don't know is what's true for the rest of us... the poison of humanity touching this subject is so clear. Bottom line... you will never prove my belief wrong, and i will never prove your belief wrong. Definition of belief matters and is simply, the reason you are living.
-->
@Fallaneze
Why?I'm an irreligious theist. I believe that a prime, eternal consciousness created the universe.
-->
@Mopac
I'm an irreligious theist. I believe that a prime, eternal consciousness created the universe.
It isn't the truth that your god exists.
-->
@Outplayz
Death will prove you wrong.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm an irreligious theist. I believe that a prime, eternal consciousness created the universe. The universe having an origin from consciousness is the best explanation of what caused the Big Bang, the fine-tunedness of the universe, among other things.
Deist perhaps?
-->
@secularmerlin
I cannot have a relationship with a being that I cannot confirm the existence of. The next move, it would seem, is god's (if such a being even exists).
I'd settle for a holy hit-man and a talking donkey.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm an irreligious theist. I believe that a prime, eternal consciousness created the universe.
What is your argument for it?
The universe having an origin from consciousness is the best explanation of what caused the Big Bang, the fine-tunedness of the universe, among other things.
The fine tune argument is flawed is you use it. Hopefully among other things is not in the line of a fine tuning argument.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The "fine-tuned universe" is widely accepted by mainstream physicists and cosmologists. The "argument from fine-tuning" argues that God is the best explanation for the fine-tuned universe. I agree with both.
DEFINITION:
"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.
EXHIBIT 1:
N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 10^36. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
EXHIBIT 2:
Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[10][12
EXHIBIT 3:
]Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
EXHIBIT 4:
Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10^−122.[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
EXHIBIT 5:
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
EXHIBIT 6:
D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime.[12]
The fine tuned universe proposition is better indicated by design rather than non-design. Therefore, since the fine tuned universe proposition is better indicated by design, this is evidence that God exists. Evidence just means information indicating whether something is true or untrue. We should believe a claim if there's more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue.
-->
@Fallaneze
The "fine-tuned universe" is widely accepted by mainstream physicists and cosmologists.
Evidence?
The "argument from fine-tuning" argues that God is the best explanation for the fine-tuned universe. I agree with both.
I am guessing you will explain this later on.
One question are you a physicist or cosmologist?
I will get to your argument after you answer that question.
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I consider myself a theist because I believe moral realism and moral realism entails the existence of a theistic God.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
From the wiki source:
"Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life".
-->
@Fallaneze
One question are you a physicist or cosmologist?
-->
@Fallaneze
No, I consider myself a theist because I believe moral realism and moral realism entails the existence of a theistic God.
How do you derive a "moral code" from an unspecified god?