Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'd like to see more of members like Mdh2000, although we didn't make much progress I thought he was a decent person to conversate with. It would be too good to be true if this part of the forum was full of decent persons to conversate with! instead of angry, aggravated haters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Yet your correlation is a hasty generalization
No it's not, you may get that impression for whatever reason but it's hasty to say I haven't intelligently thought it out. Though again, the premise is simplistic and not overly complex I'm paying close attention to all things involved as I've been in this game for over a decade and not to mention considering Theistic theory since I was a young kid. I've carefully considered all sides and many angles and I am bringing to you the best possible scenario and conclusion despite you not being impressed by the lack of explanation. Not that I want to repeat all this again but I just wanted to make it clear that your assumption isn't the most fair IMO, and not fair to all the thought I've put behind it and actually none of my thought processes are "hasty" I put a lot emphasis in thinking about all angles involved.
Correlation is correlation, at least I'm giving you some correlation to ponder and not just pandering to beliefs or dogma. This in fact should be interesting to you because had you found some satisfaction in the premise I could have then expounded on how it all works together. And I was hoping we could expand the discussion but I guess that's not in the cards at this time. Let me know though, since you were such a good sport maybe we could challenge other ideals. Not much going on in this forum anyways why not...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Lol, hopefully he's found another joint to blow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes I think so too. There's too many personality types and agendas, preferences and opinions that's just how humans are. It would be kind of weird if everybody went to the same church with the same exact beliefs lol. It wouldn't seem right.
Don't get me wrong, Christianity at its heart is about unity but unity can be achieved between two people with different opinions. Because there's unity of spirit, this works independent of what someone might think or believe. In other words there's a reality at play that exists independent of what someone may believe about a particular something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Denominations as well as different religions exist for the same reason cultures exist and all the variations between them. This topic sort of reminds me of this link below which is sort of the same idea.
I'm not against varieties and flavors so I agree with most of what you said here. IMO beliefs are a dime a dozen and are mostly irrelevant as are peoples personal tastes and preferences, meaning a lot of them aren't even applicable they are just opinions about a certain doctrine they have no relevancy to a persons spiritual growth. It's the things that are actually applicable that make the most difference, a lot of things that are disputed in doctrinal issues aren't something that make or break a person they are trivial. In the end it won't be about what a person "believes" but what a person applied and actually did and so two people may have variations in what they think or believe but still qualify as a Christian according to how they act and live their life. As well not all believers are Christians, it works both ways because it's about application not beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Cool post. God would be considered a maximal Being, that can do whatever is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Can you pls help me find video's of a muslim claiming to see allah and not jesus.My predicament was when i tried to find some Muslims who claim to have vision of god.They did not claim to see alah but jesus.When i tried to search up visions of budah.Jesus popped up.Can you tell me your search results.When i typed muslim see's vision of god.The muslim did not claim to see the muslim god.When i typed budhist see's vision of god.I did not see a budhist claiming to see budha.Tell me what The muslim budhist and hinduist claimed to have saw in your search result's
Jesus is an incarnation, so Jesus has a body in creation. God independent of bodies in creation has no true form, so when a person has a vision of a "God" it's usually a being who has an incarnated form. God the Father, Allah, Brahman ect ect have no incarnated form...different names for the same phenomenon. Jesus comes out of God the Father, which is why He always points back to the Father....the "Father" has no incarnated body so one can't "see" God the Father in that way...or Brahman or Allah ect ect. You have to understand the nature of God and the nature of created bodies. If you have any specific questions regarding this or how it works just ask. I'm not going to argue about "who" is God, but rather explain to you why this happens.
Usually when a person has a vision of a higher being or a spiritual Master they assume it's "God"....it is but it's God in the flesh, AKA an incarnation. In order that God the Father have a body, God must first incarnate. God the Father, Brahman or Allah is in its highest formless state, once God incarnates that limits the true state of God. There's also levels to these incarnations depending on the form. Do a Wiki search for Brahman and get an idea of what that entails, it's more a universal understanding of what God is and what it means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyran_Orex
Well, it's great to hear that you have never been to a Church that doesn't discriminate.Can you name it?
So you get to make blanket statements and assertions about every Church without naming them and now I'm supposed to name the Church's I've been to that prove you're a liar lol? get a grip. Why don't you name these supposed Church's that you have visited where you were discriminated against first. You made the claim so you get to show us all who they were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Heads up, forum rules say that you are not to personally attack members with derogatory names
You're acting like a lunatic that's not an insult but it is certainly obvious. If I wanted to insult you I would have retaliated when you called me "ignorant, and stupid" in post #23 (is that what you mean by derogatory names?). Now crawl back under your bridge and get a grip troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
It's really just an argument from design
Not really, it takes a step deeper than that (or two). Just looking at the world and using the premise everything looks designed is not nearly as direct or effective. I'm using the actual processes we observe in the universe and correlating them with intelligence or a Creator, my premise isn't just about appearance there's an actual legit basis for my claim. I have never heard anyone ever correlate God with the processes and development within the universe but that's beside the point really. Now before you start saying there is no legit basis for my claim anyone reading this thread can go back, check my content and decide that for themselves. I accept that you aren't impressed.....At this point, you claiming the premise is not supported over and over is not getting us any closer to the truth so again I have to say we could agree to disagree. As of yet, you've given me no reason to indicate that you have a good reason to keep your current beliefs and worldview.
I'll try and get to more of your post when I get a free minute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The god hypothesis is sound.
Very good. I too agree.
Though on a U.S. based forum, god tends to get railroaded into fitting with one particular model.
That's okay but not this model, quite irrelevant but something that can be discussed and hashed out after we come to an agreement the premise is sound. In other words it's something that can be worked out after the first obstacle is settled. The model I'm using is universal, because God is universal, specific religions or particular models aren't really relevant in terms of embracing creation as a legit model.
Whereas the god principle, might actually represent one of a hundred or more other possibilities.
Not sure what you mean, but would love to discuss it maturely.
Or the god principle might be complete bunkum.
What do you mean by the God principle?
What is currently patently obvious, is that no one is able to actually know the answer and you only think that you do.
I know what I know, and I know that the pieces can be put together, who am I? I'm just a simple man that has a great love and passion for God the Creator. Everything about God can be known, because you come from that very Reality and can never be anything else. While everyone has access to the same information not everyone is willing to receive it, including believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ok. Not to mention you being so wrong about every word in your post above as perfectly demonstrated by the Brother at post #23
No, nothing was demonstrated by that lunatic lol, and he's probably an atheist not a Christian. He's just pretending to be one to make believers look like wackos.
tell me, so what else is there in the scriptures that does not have to be believed by a Christian?
The Noah's Ark tale is just a story, not an application. The only things in scripture that are important are things that are actually applicable, stories are nice and may contain valuable lessons but they aren't a requirement for anything that's silly. Noah's Ark is no more relevant than Moby Dick in terms of a persons spiritual condition and progress. Things that are applicable are the things a person can actually DO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Settle down before you burst a blood vessel. Get a grip.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Sorry, the last couple of posts lost their headers. Though let us continue.
That's okay, you seem to want the last word on the discussion so be it, I don't think I need to say anymore.
Let us begin by seeing what we can agree on. I take it we can both agree the universe exists, that we can determine reasonably reliable information about this universe through the use of logic and evidene?
Don't forget I'm establishing a fresh premise, this is my own argument even though you want to label it an assumption. This is an original premise (that I know of) so I don't have a supporting link or some scientific demonstration for you to rely on or fact check that's why we have to begin with common sense logic, the argument is as simplistic as I've made it. We're treading new grounds here, that's not to say that the God hypothesis hasn't been around longer than any other, though I'm trying to show you how and why it fits.
Evidence, being defined as "that which indicates a proposition true or valid" is already justified. Logic has already been the tool used to undergird the premise....So we're half way there in terms of your demands, now all I need to do is get you to admit it's a logical conclusion and one that is more suitable than "I don't know". From there, accepting a superior platform we can move the discussion forward, assuming you will have questions and concerns about God, religion, the soul ect ect….but for now I'm not going back over old grounds again and again.
Once we agree that at least we have a logical premise I'll be happy with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You're attempting to make a point here where one doesn't exist.
That's what I was thinking about your comment.
If religion is a part of SupaDudz day to day normality, and allows them to cope with the current situation, then that's just fine. That's the way to go for them.
You know that was not your full intentions, I'm not that dumb.
I personally have never needed a religious concept to get me through difficult situations. I focus on other assumed positives.
That's because you're an atheist, you don't see the value in appealing to that which transcends your immediate physical sense perceptions. And one doesn't need religious concepts to get through difficult times, but since there is indeed a transcendent reality there's no harm in appealing to it. What you bind yourself to in this world will dictate your destination in the next.
At the end of the day, it really all boils down to how as individuals we acquire and process data.
And that depends on what you allow yourself to acquire and process, you wouldn't want to limit yourself and be cutoff from other observations and experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It does because if the story is fake, its grounds to assume the whole bible is fake.
While I think that is a bit extreme, how would that mean God doesn't exist? God's existence doesn't depend on the Bible.
There is useful information in the bible, but I can take what I like from the bible and ignore the rest if I'm not Christian. If I was Christian, I would have to obey the bible as much as plausible, otherwise I'd be afraid of hell.
Not really. Do you have a reason to believe such a thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Well you know you aren't required to believe it, it won't change your relation or beliefs in God. So, it doesn't really matter whether it happened or not. That doesn't mean there is no useful information in the Bible either, but you aren't required to believe in the Noah's Ark account as a literal account.
Created:
Posted in:
So to answer the question I'm not really uncomfortable with the Bible because I'm also not looking for perfection out of it.
Created:
Posted in:
Well if there are aspects in the Bible where there is a command or law to endorse or follow and it goes against our moral code and conduct that creates an uncomfortable reaction. For example there are several laws in the OT I have no intention of carrying out lol, but I don't look for perfection in the Bible either I look for content that is usable and applicable so it doesn't really affect me personally. Just because there is some unusable content in the Bible doesn't mean it's all unusable either.
I understand that the Bible is a giant mixture of culture, opinions, tradition, archaic ways of thinking and living and of course a lot of spiritual content. The Bible was written in an age where culture and spirituality were woven together and you have that mix in the Bible, and the OT in specific was written with the intention of it dictating their way of life and culture. So you have laws and codes of conduct intended for their specific tribes and clergymen. That was a long, long time ago when the way of life as we know it was drastically different.
They didn't have a Government and police force overseeing everything so their culture and laws were much more harsh and they wanted to keep purity and stabilization within their societies and desired to enforce what they considered moral and proper through harsh consequences. I think back then there was a lot of fear that their societies would be infected or disrupted so they kept the laws tight and the consequences brutal as to not have any rebellion or disruption and for good reason.
As you can see from history there were some flipped out cultures and peoples, there was much more barbarity, wars and rebellion back then and that is reflected in scripture. This is why you see the God of war, God of justice, the God of law, the God of retribution, God of vengeance ect ect......all this was a reflection of their ways of life, it was brutal and life was much more fragile, vulnerable and unpredictable. There was no separation of Church and state it was all mixed together and so what the writers experienced in life is what you see in their content. It was a time of extreme war where they could have been annihilated at any moment and so God was expressed as a God of protection and war. The time period was intense and so God was intense.
We're not OT Jews and we aren't forced to live their way of life so their cultural content is not applicable for us in that way. So when reading the Bible one should be aware of that, and that not everything within in it is relevant to us now. It's okay to gain from the Bible what is usable and discard what is unusable, otherwise one could get arrested lol. But seriously, there is valuable content in the Bible but people insists on emphasizing the content that is unusable. Part of that problem is because of religious people and organizations, that every part of the Bible must be perfect and must be believed when that is not so.
No one is required to believe in things they don't agree with, or to accept the whole Bible to have relations with God.
This is sort of a different angle than what you are suggesting, I'm suggesting that just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it is right or that it's suited for every soul. I think that is unnecessary to begin with. Having said that when I was younger I found no faults with the Bible, but I wasn't really looking to discredit it either so I focused primarily on what I could actually use from it. Having got older and thinking much deeper I realized that not everything within the Bible needs to be accepted, and that if I don't agree with something it doesn't effect my relations with God either. In other words the Bible doesn't dictate my connection with God, but at the same time the Bible has useful information.
I think that if unbelievers could approach the Bible having some individuality and their conscience intact, having some flexibility and not the threat of hell hanging over their heads we'd have better discussions. At least not so hostile.
And I'm not a new age believer either lol, I'm an old school guy but spirituality is much more flexible than people know. It's the fundamentalist approach that causes so much conflict. God exists independent of the Bible, and while the Bible has useful information it's not a perfect book, it was compiled by imperfect men and cultures. It's okay that there are imperfections in the Bible, God still exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I don't know, but then I'm not a biologist, but again if I know or not is immaterial to the validity of your claim. 2+2=5 isn't made valid if i know the answer or not.
If you don't know why processes occur or how they could ever generate themselves and I know that processes only occur through an agent my position is superior, how can you not see that? remember, if we were asked what is 2+2 and you said you don't know and I said 4, I have the superior calculation. So, no, it's not immaterial to my premise, you have no answer or reason to accept what you have accepted. I do have a reason and an answer for the premise I have accepted.
The reason it seems to be that I understand your argument is that I believe I do. The reason that I keep asking that you answer my question is because you haven't directly. You seem to equate the lack of a counter proposition as evidence for your proposition, which isn't logically the case, that I can't answer a question doesn't make any other answer more or less valid. That's an argument from ignorance. The question keeps getting asked because the question is still valid and unresolved.
Read above.
If by intelligent products you mean things created by an intelligence then of course you are right, but then in the context of this discussion it's also circular. I would ask again how we verify anything that exists in nature was intended? If you mean processes created intelligence, then I ask why does intelligence need to stem from intelligence? What is the reasoning to conclude this.
Already went over that.
I think this is part of our problem. You are trying to attack an assumption I don't hold. You can't make your premise appealing by dismissing others, you can only do so by showing it to be supported by logically sound evidence. For example, explaining why the fact processes can be initiated by intelligences suggests they must be would be a good first step or showing where the intelligence is in the natural processes we observe daily.
I'm not dismissing others, I'm using your weak premise and assumption to appeal to a better proposition. You don't know why things occur, to answer that question means you would have to accept an absurd explanation, that they just occur for no reason all by themselves, when we can see very clearly that there is an intended outcome in these processes, as if they were intelligent. Of course they aren't, they are materials used by an intelligent Agent to create desired products.
What we have here is a consideration of your premise. As of yet I'm seeing a number of logical fallacies (I've noted them in past posts, but can list them and their contexts again in a post if you'd like?), I have yet to see anything superior to the proposition that we lack the means to come to conclusion that's logically sound and verifiable.
So-called fallacies just give you a way of avoiding the fact at hand, stop saying I'm using fallacies when my premise is very clear and simple. It's a waste of space and time. The reason why my premise is superior, is because it follows the logic through and it's common sense, as opposed to "I don't know". That's like apples and oranges, a non-answer is not superior to an answer.
My question is can you verify your premise that it takes an intelligence to generate or create anything? Can you back this up with logic and supporting evidence or is it just good ole fashioned common sense (which we know from experience can be wrong)?
I have been verifying it by giving you examples of production as associated with intelligence, and by appealing to your rational mind that things can't just produce themselves. Why you believe they can is beyond me, especially when you say you don't know why. I mean I don't really understand why you wouldn't think my premise is not superior unless you believe in magic. That things can create themselves.
Good ole common sense is how we establish the validity of a claim or lack thereof. We need common sense to reach a logical conclusion, then we move forward.
This is almost disingenuous at this point to my knowledge no one here is claiming something came from nothing, so that's a straw man. The rest is an argument from absurdity.
That's basically what your premise is, somehow processes gathered inanimate materials and began producing themselves, eventually into intelligent creatures. If that process DIDN'T come from nothing, then why and where did it come from?
I propose rather than simply state opinions we have a frank discussion without any presuppositions in regard to what's absurd and what isn't and establish that through reason and evidence and see where that takes us with some applied critical thinking?
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Except you haven't addressed where we can observe the intelligence in the aging process
Matter is intended to have a lifespan, where our experience of time is linear, that is the nature of matter it isn't eternal. So you won't find perfection really in creation, meaning things that last forever. The physical world will always be built for decomposing, it's built with material that doesn't last. This is just supposed to be a stepping stone, however the soul itself is eternal it moves forward as the physical body passes.
Do you mean an intended end result?
Yes, an intended or desired outcome.
It's not that I don't think there's any, i just don't think that any has been presented. The issue is that there's the no true scotsman that you don't factor in natural processes that we see every day, such as heat transference
Don't forget there are processes and there are effects, not all effects are the direct result of intelligence but the results of intelligent processes. So just because I say there must be intelligence for processes to occur doesn't necessarily mean everything we see take place is directed, for example even though the sun was created through a process, if you were to get burned from getting to close that's just an effect. Heat transference is an indirect process, meaning an effect having a cause.
My question to you has been why because intelligent beings can initiate processes does it follow all processes must be initiated by intelligence?
Why would you disrupt the flow of logic here from "we know intelligent beings can initiate a process" to now "no being is needed to initiate a process"? you have to follow the logic through, unless you intend to make the fallacy of special pleading... why make an exception for one? again you are content with accepting that processes occur all by themselves because of a chosen worldview, materialism, and not because it's rational.
What I put to you is that because A can initiate B doesn't mean only A can initiate B, perhaps there's a C or D that can as well. Or perhaps we lack enough information to formulate any reliably accurate idea about B might be initiated.
That's called special pleading. You're making an exception for the other.
I generally believe if an answer is that it's obvious and upon critical consideration I'm unable to explain the reason it's obvious then it's time to begin giving it critical reevaluation, or take view it as an opinion.
But you can't explain your premise, you only have said my premise has no explanation yet when I ask you how processes occur on their own you say you don't know. Lol, at least I have an answer for it. Processes occur because of an intelligent agent always, there is no exception to that rule because processes occurring all by themselves is an absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Do you have a logical argument for why intelligence can't originate from an unintelligent sorce?
Yes, it's nonsensical. Intelligence can't just spontaneously create itself unless you believe in magic, do you not see the value in that assessment? why do you think IT CAN, is the appropriate question. You want me to give you some explanation outside of commonsense when in fact you should be asking yourself how can it. It's self-explanatory.
Or do you aasume it based on perceived common sense?
You can label it an assumption, but yes I believe it is common sense.
the fact that we observe processes in nature that so far can't be shown to be initiated by an intelligence.
That is an assumption, we've been over that already. The acceptance that the processes in nature occurring all by themselves is materialism, which is a worldview meaning it's derived from your own interpretation. Science doesn't claim that, it just shows how the processes work, not why they exist or why they even occur at all.
My question had no answer in it. It stands why does evolution suggest an intelligence be involved. I haven't been presented with any reason it does.
It's commonsense. I keep pointing that out but that's what it is. If you disagree then my whole premise is probably not going to resonate with you. I tell you look at the results, it produces intelligence.....the very process itself aims to produce what would be the product of forethought, you so far seem content in accepting that an intelligent production occurred all on its own. That's the absurdity of it, nothing occurs all by itself, certainly not processes that produce intelligent results, you may call it an assumption but at least it's commonsense.
My issue is unsupported common sense is simply assumption. That isn't a solid basis in my opinion for claims of truth.
Okay, I respect your opinion. But, if we don't use common sense to support a conclusion what should we begin with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrant_Rex
I am a valid member
No you aren't, you're a banned multi accounter with no respect for the topics at hand. You keep getting banned because you are an angry bigot, you're not here for discussion but preaching. Now get lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Day to day relative normality works just fine for me.
Not for others, their observations and interest extends beyond the experience of just the physical world. If that's all you prefer so be it, but there's a lot more for others to set their affections on. Hopefully it's not just your mindset and atheism that limits where you put your affections because that would be unfortunate. They would then be controlling what your input and output are and will dictate your future experiences as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I apologize I do all my editing and spell checks after I post for whatever reason lol, so if something changes after you've read it that's why. I should probably get into the habit of spell checking before I post...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrant_Rex
Both I and A Troubled Man have asked the same question in this and other topics and Eternal VW knows full well that he has no rational answer,
Lol number one you aren't a valid member, two... don't butt into my discussions with other valid members and three I'll address you as needed. I've been more than willing to address your nonsense over the years, only to be met with bigotry and anger. You don't ask questions, you come to this subject with preconceived ideas and some grudge you have about religion. Grow up. If you want a mature discussion you have failed big time, now go to another forum and practice your behavior and maybe somewhere down the line we could have a grown up chat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
In an effort to once again consolidate our discussion and keep it on point and ensure that we understand each other, I am going to make a final effort to address this discussion in a way that I hope will be clear to you and explain why I question your claims.We began this with you saying accepting that that the universe is developed by processes and that processes are always associtated with a mind or intelligence.My point of contention is that while you can argue that either of these positions is true depending on how we define them they become mutually exclusive unless you can show intelligence associated with those processes involved in developing the universe.
First of all the definitions themselves are irrelevant to the conclusion, I was just using the definitions to show what I mean by a process. The definitions aren't what is validating the argument, it's the rationale that's supporting the argument. I'm showing that intelligence was involved by asking you to consider the intelligence by what they produce, and that it's silly to accept that processes occur all by themselves. I reinforced that idea by correlating what we know about processes in our daily observations.
If you don't think there is any rationale connected with processes being associated with intelligence then we have to agree to disagree, to me it is blatantly obvious but I can't make you believe that if you don't want to. I don't believe that any processes could just occur, to me, all the things we know of that are associated with processes and development are associated with an agent and again, I'm extending that premise to the universe and its processes. This is to give you something to think about in terms of a Creator, rather than atheism. In other words I'm trying to make sense of it for you, and show you how what you know about the universe is compatible with a Creator.
So far you have addressed this by pointing the world around us and suggesting that they are all associated with an intelligence.
Yes, I'm correlating my premise with what we know about development and processes so you know there is evidence and demonstration in what I'm claiming. That it is a backed up proposition.
The evolution of life is a clever choice since it is (albeit in a very round about way) possible to show it has an association with intelligence, though I ask why this suggests it was initiated by an intelligence?
You just answered that, it is that simple. It doesn't need a complicated answer this is simply common sense. Truth is simplistic and logic doesn't need to be complex.....if it is logical to believe that a process like evolution can be connected with an intelligent Agent then you have good reason to consider it period. If I'm to show you there is a Creator involved in the universe my premise has to be concise and solid and I think we are in that ballpark. Now, it's just a matter of getting your attention and switching your perspective around, the premise itself is already logical and reasonable.
The same question applies to the other examples you have given. Ultimately if you simply deduce that the end result of natural processes leads to the conclusion that natural processes require an intelligence then I ask why? What is your reasoning and argumentation to get to that conclusion? This is the crux of your argument.
Well if I'm to give you hope about a Creator or a God, then I have to show that it is worth considering. I have to show why creation is superior to your current belief or worldview. So the very proposition itself is to get you to look at the obvious, and hopefully can give you a platform worth pondering. Again, this is all obvious to me, since evolution itself creates intelligence how does it do that?
My reasoning has always been simple, intelligence doesn't produce itself into existence from nothing or from dormant material, in order for a process to occur something has to arrange and get that process going. The processes that occur in the universe have definitive concise results producing and definitive desired outcomes and the other half of my premise is to ask you how could that happen from any inanimate force? do you believe a stack of bricks could construct a building by themselves? or that a computer could wire itself? or that a recipe could bake itself? and do you really believe that materials over millions of years could produce intelligent sentient creatures all by themselves?
So I ask (with every hope that you'll answer) why does any feature developed by natural processes show an intelligence was necessary?
I've been answering this along time now, the rationale behind it is within pages of this very thread. TBH I don't know how to make it any clearer, sometimes you seem to get it and then you just ask the question again as if you never got it lol. You seem willing to consider it I just don't know why you want me to keep repeating it.
Basically I'm saying that I don't believe that those processes could occur naturally, without an intelligent source because I understand that inanimate forces don't generate intelligent products, that speaks for itself albeit it is my opinion. I think that in order for you to accept that they do, you have to show how and why that could happen (counterevidence), your answer is that "you don't know" and that alone should help you in this discussion. I'm using your own assumption that they do occur all by themselves against you, by having you consider the alternative. Having you consider a superior premise that they occur through an intelligent Source, otherwise there would be no process, this universe would not exist without God.
I think that it is necessary that there be an agent if a process were to occur because it takes intelligence to generate or create anything, there has to be an intelligent factor to figure it out and then to implement it put the materials together and then begin to construct, again it's just good ole commonsense there's nothing too complicated about it. The alternative would be to believe that something could build itself into existence, that something inanimate could begin a process of development and I'm trying to show you that to accept that is absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The biblical evidence for the origins of evil keeps mounting
Lol no it doesn't, it keeps being brought to your attention that evil is not a thing to be created (despite the interpretation you keep using from the Bible), rather is the results of actions, the "origins of evil" are the results of what we do if they cause or inflict harm, there is nothing else beyond that! That's what you're not getting through your thick scull, continual quoting of that Isaiah passage does nothing for your case. Go back and reread my original post, it's all explained for ya.
EVIL-
arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
profoundly immoral and wicked
Evil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
Notice evil is not defined as a person or thing, which means the origins of evil arise from intentions and conduct, it's not a THING or object that has an origin. So basically even though there is an interpretation in the Bible that claims God created it, it's nonsensical (doesn't make sense). In other words doesn't matter, and if you go back and read my OP I explained how it fits and where God is responsible and where we are responsible. That's where the so-called origins of evil are, it isn't a thing or object it's a categorization of the consequences of someone's doings. In other words if I perpetrate something profoundly immoral that action is deemed evil.
If evil is referenced or defined as a source or force, it's because of the INTENTIONS behind that person. In other words the persons actions and intentions are represented as evil because of what those actions CAUSE. Again, evil itself is a label not a thing, therefore it has no origins apart from ones actions or intentions. Get it? that's real simple right?
Now go ahead and repeat that Bible passage as if I never explained it for you lol.....
BTW If you're an actual Theist (as in not an Atheist) why is your objective always to discredit the Bible rather than to support your own Theistic beliefs and ideas? in other words why don't all your efforts go into a more constructive outlet? what's the point in trying to defy Christians all day long? it seems like you have an obsession with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Crazy ain't it? everything this guy spouts has no relevance to any of my beliefs or experiences at all yet he has no idea of that lol. It's actually pathetic and sad, because those same presumptions and preconceived notions he has creates this misconception that religion is all bad and somehow that means God doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyran_Orex
Isn't any form of baptism symbolic anyway?
A normal question without prefacing, blanket statements, assertions and insults? (Holy sht) wait...this is Willy right?
Created:
-->
@Tyran_Orex
each accuses the other of lying
Hilarious the way you make blanket statements, then actually believe they are true. It's pretty obvious your experience with religion was very sad to say the least, it's almost as if your experience is all derived from liberal online articles. But we know you're not that much of a bigot right ? lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyran_Orex
members are encouraged to discriminate against minority groups
I've never been to a Church in my life that discriminates nor would I support that in any way, sorry Willy. Perhaps try a different Church?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyran_Orex
you simply despise anyone who has a valued and reasoned argument against your own unfounded beliefs?
No, that would be you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
The answer to your question is simple. I don't know, but then I also don't know how an intelligence could initiate the formation of planets, galaxies or evolution. This is an argument from ignorance and in no way makes your claim stronger.
Of course it does silly, I have an answer and you don't. If someone asked us what is 2+2 and your answer was I don't know and mine was 4 who's answer is stronger?? just because you're not acknowledging my answer as a legit one means basically nothing.
God creates and forms things just like any creator or artist or builder. There is first a desire and then a plan, God gathers the necessary materials and begins the process of constructing them, then the result. Once you fully understand the nature of what God is this is much easier to conceptualize.
As for consolidating this, you can do it by answering one simple question. Can you show anything in nature that can be shown to fit your definition of process (not simply has been called a process by others, but can actually fit your definition of process), including being associated with an intelligence?
I already gave you some examples, I can associate them with intelligence by what they produce, the outcome. Evolution for example, just look in the mirror, wah-lah there's an intelligent, sentient being. That is the production of evolution, same can be said for all other living creatures. Look at the eco-system and how its designed and how it accommodates all living things, look at Earth, it has a light and heat source including the reflection of the moon so we're never in complete darkness. It contains water, food and all the necessary components that living things can flourish.
I mean for God sakes planets.....PLANETS, what is a planet? why would a planet create itself lol? a planet is a giant habitat for things to potentially live on, the way they are set into orbit so that gravitation may take effect....stars how they seed the universe continually, they provide heat, elements and matter as they are born and as they die. I could go on and on but these are things obviously associated with thought and intelligence.
Also you're again misusing the term 'real world' unless you don't think the formation of planets occurs in the real world? If you do then I would point out that we see can observe no intelligence in that process so your argument fails.
I'm using the term to distinguish our own world observations of productions and development and extending that premise to the universe to show you how processes are always associated with a mind or intelligence. You know, like that which takes place on the earth in regards to its inhabitants. I thought maybe you'd have picked up on that already.
Actually only that made by humans can be shown to fit that description.
That's what I am referring to. At this point I have to wonder if you're just trolling me. Let me know when you catch up. This is beginning to fall into the categories of obnoxious and monotonous. When you want to move forward from what I wrote above let me know, I'm not wasting anymore time repeating myself. If you want create your own thread about it I may contribute. But at this time I think it's fair to say there's not much more to go over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
As for your statement 'this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes' I must who is asserting that the processes are intelligent? How do you know the processes are intelligent? Can you demonstrate that any process is intelligent?
Yes, by the very products we have in our world. I can't even believe anyone could ask that with a straight face. How are processes NOT intelligent, can you answer that? how could something of no intelligence produce something? in order for there to even be a production in the first place there needs to be a producer...how can something produce itself?
Humans initiate processes, but do you propose that the processes themselves are intelligent, if so can you substantiate that claim? If not then your question doesn't work.
Again this is showing me you're not getting a very simple idea. I'm not saying the processes themselves are intelligent, I'm saying the processes occur through an intelligent source just like you said above, HUMANS INTINIATE PROCESESS, I'm extending that same premise to the universe! GOD INITIATES PROCESSES.
However if you mean processes that lead to an intended result then can you show the result of any natural process is intended
Yes, if it is indeed intended, then there needs to be someone that intended it. We can show that by the results of any given process, that it had intention.
Intention
a thing intended; an aim or plan.
what one intends to do or bring about
An aim that guides action; an objective
the end or object intended; purpose.
Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.
Intentions", "Intent", "Purpose"
To me, it's obvious the processes that have occurred in the universe had an intended purpose or intention, just by observing the results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I could never figure out what anyone would have against variety.
That's what I ask myself, it is what makes creation beautiful and interesting. Unfortunately humans have a very bad habit of discrimination and judging others of difference. Very sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
A yes would have done.
I wasn't trying to be a smart ass my friend, I was trying to give you some clarity. Sorry. We're going to have to condense this somehow so I'm going to respond to the most definitive inquiries as they all seem to have the same questions involved. We had the same problem with the other member in this thread lol. I feel the premise is solid and conclusive so I'm not sure why there is any confusion about it. Both of you keep asking how I associate processes with intelligence and I've made that pretty clear. It's not a complicated answer, it's simply a rational common sense judgement.
Part of my answer is to ask you a common sense question, how could any inanimate force (or a nothing) create, generate or produce a process in the first place? for there to be a process, there needs to be first a plan, then a curse of action to bring that process to fruition and of course to completion. Inanimate forces and elements can't think on their own, they can't plan and generate intelligent processes all by themselves. All the processes we see take place in the real world originate first with an intelligence whether that be with a human or a creature.
Everything we know of in the real world is generated, manufactured, developed, produced, constructed through a plan, then materials, then a process to get from a plan to materials to a result or finished product.
I'm extending that same premise to creation or the universe. What is there to be unsure about? where did I leave room for any inconclusiveness? I can't make it any simpler or easier to get.
So far, no one has been able to give me a straight answer to the above question other than they just accept or believe that it does happen, or to lecture me what is involved in a given process. That's not what I'm asking....How does a process occur at all without intelligence? show me how that happens. I want to know right at the moment something begins to generate a process what generated or initiated that occurrence, if you have no real answer then the proposition I'm laying out should be considered as a legitimate one.
Because ultimately there is no alternative, the answer is right smack in your face. Intelligence is what generates processes, we know that because we have our own experience of that in the real world.
However, I question your position you keep asserting that all processes are associated with an intelligence. How do you associate the formation of anything in nature with an intelligence. Also can you show that the definitions you've given are using your definition of process or a definition that requires intelligence? If not then you're making an equivocation fallacy, if they are then I question how anyone determines that which you've listed is associated with an intelligence? In short you've got yourself a semantic argument that doesn't seem able to lead to any logical conclusions.
If what I have said ISN'T logical I don't know what you would be convinced by TBH. I mean it doesn't get any more logical than what I just pointed out, what I've been saying the whole time.
Unless evolution, the formations of planets and galaxies and all the other processes in nature do of course. Can you show they don't, or is this just an assumption on your part?
An assumption would be to make an assertion without any reason or proof, that is an insult to my intelligence and quite frankly I'm sick of the accusation altogether. There's plenty of reason to consider what I'm saying, I just laid it out above. The proof of the premise is much more complicated because my beliefs don't actually rest on this one argument. I believe the proof that God exists can be seen at many different angles so because I have already found it convincing and know that God exists I'm giving you a foundation or platform to consider that removes the idea that somehow processes can occur all by themselves. It's based on common sense not necessarily proof, at the same time I'm not making an assumption. Even if it were just an assumption that doesn't really mean it ain't true.
At some point you should be willing to accept the reasoning behind what I'm saying, at least to move forward in the discussion.
I don't have to show that processes don't just occur all by themselves, it's silly to even accept that they do because I know they don't, it's supported by the fact that everything that we know of that was developed had a developer.....cars don't just invent themselves, buildings don't just build themselves, construction doesn't just construct itself, processes don't just produce themselves ect ect That's why I'm appealing to common sense logic. I can show you all the materials and processes involved in any given product like I can show you the materials and processes involved in the products of the universe but all those things had a producer.
Created:
Posted in:
The funny part is they use this so-called argument in favor against God or religion and used in a negative way when in fact it supports it, that's the irony of it all. God is universal and each culture has their own interpretation of that Reality, with only a few interpreting an atheistic view (which is fine too). Just like when you go to different countries and they all have their own way and style of cooking, or their own style of clothing, or their own style of buildings, architecture, language, education and of course religious ideas and concepts about the Creator.
Do we ever say that those things don't exist because they all are different one from the other? or that they are not legitimate? or they have no value? Of course not, so why when different cultures express their religious beliefs in different ways is it suddenly a negative or something used to disprove God? that's stupid, of course every culture will have their own way of expressing the SAME Reality, how could they not? God is one massive phenomenon, and there are many aspects of God and MANY places in creation even beyond this one universe, we're talking about an Eternal Reality with no limits and no boundaries. No one can put restrictions and limitations on that.
There's also deeper reasons for this phenomenon besides just different interpretations, when you leave this world there's not just two places or one that an individual can go. The afterlife and the parallel worlds are just like our universe, there's many planets, galaxies and places, cultures, groups, heavens, hells, peoples, creatures ect ect so there are accuracies involved in different expressions of God and creation because there are countless cultures and places outside the physical universe. And that's the fun part, most people are stuck in one culture and belief system not knowing God is a God of variety and flavors.
God enjoys creating countless souls and in doing so God knows there needs to be countless places for the soul to exist. God knows that not all cultures will be the same and reflect the same things that is obvious and God accommodates every group of people. That doesn't mean that everyone goes to a heaven when they leave here, cause and effect and Karma are still real factors no matter what culture you were raised in. But each culture of souls have an extended culture that exists beyond this one, this is why for example you have a group like the Native Americans always putting emphasis on their culture and their ancestors because they know that there will be an extension of their culture when they die and leave this world.....why Christianity always puts emphasis on the Christian Heaven or Hell, they know there will be such a Kingdom that exists and this is the same for each culture and religion.
This does not imply that souls can't mix and match either, the soul is free to choose what it wants and what it relates most with. Their main obligation is to follow the universal rules of creation. And that they answer to the call of spirituality (no matter the belief system), be willing to progress in creation.
Each religion and culture believes their ideas are most accurate, that they are special among the others and that is okay too, just like Americans love America and believe their country is most desirable....they call that patriotism. The same thing applies to religion and their cultures, that's what makes them special and unique, they call this a creed. So really it is irrelevant to bring up the fact each belief system claims they are the only one that's legit (if they even do). That's the nature of all this, and why people have such passion in their beliefs and that is the point of creeds and zeal, it anchors the individual to their culture and way of thinking. It creates a passionate binding for each culture. If you understand it according to the terms I just laid out everyone should be quite happy, and delighted and overjoyed knowing that God is that friggin cool. It's a refreshing way of understanding God and I'm not just blowing smoke up people's arse this is true about creation. It also should answer and satisfy many questions people have about God and religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You're not going to find much information on links. Most of the information I'm submitting is from books written by or involved people heavily involved in Luciferianism, Masonry, depositions on Magisterial Privilege, associations with the Roman Catholic Church, Kemetic, Semetic, Greek, Norse, and Roman history, religion, and mythology, etc. I'll compile a reading list for you when I go through my books.
Okay got it, thanks for the offer.
That's not the worst they do to small children. Look up "Magisterial Privilege" where there were depositions made in a court case in 2013 in Brussels which delineated that every new pope must abuse, drink the blood of, and sacrifice infants and small children. That's the reason Pope Ratzinger a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI was forced to retire in the same month of the investigations.
Wow, although shocking it shouldn't surprise me really, those people's demeanor is outright demonic and disturbing. Amazing how powerful they got, could you imagine sending your children and supporting them with money thinking your raising your kids in a Godly way only to be putting them in the company of wolves and demons? scary stuff. Not to mention all the child molestation that goes on, I mean this shyt needs to be stopped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
The available body of facts and information can be found in the overwhelming data base of religious and spiritual sources, that's up to you to source.
No, it isn't up to me to source, that's not how these discussions work. I don't support your claims
That came out wrong or you misunderstood what I meant, I wasn't saying you need to source MY claims. What I meant was that if you're interested in the claims and knowledge about God then you should be educating and examining the works of religious and spiritual sources yourself rather than always relying on an incomplete source. You should be aware that the scientific method only deals with one nature of our experience. There's a whole data base of facts and insights at your finger tips of what correlates with that field of knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I wouldn't agree with that, God wants people to have faith in Him.
Lol faith is trust and confidence, both trust and confidence are developed through evidence, experience and reason. Spiritual faith is not to believe in things with no reason or evidence, that's contrary to what it means to have faith. This is why Jesus refers to faith as "little faith" vs "great faith" or no faith at all, he correlates a persons confidence and trust with their own faith. You can't have faith without belief, which necessitates reason, you can't have faith without confidence, which necessitates experience and you can't have faith without trust which necessitates evidence. They all work hand in hand to build a persons faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
No, you didn't provide explanations
I'm done with your nonsense. I don't care whether or not you agree with it but at least you could acknowledge it. Here is my premise one last time.....here is the explanations (a statement or account that makes something clear). to support that premise.
Proposition (inference)=
The universe is made up of intelligent processes that achieve a particular ends, it operates as an intelligent source, that source would be what we call God (Creator). God uses the processes we observe in the universe to bring things into existence.
Rationale (reasoning)=
Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.
Common sense (explanation)=
It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience. To build or achieve anything means to have a plan and then to put that plan into operation, common sense would tell us that proposition needs first a mind involved, or an intelligent source behind that achievement or destination.
Correlation=
We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence. Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other. There is a mutual relationship between that which produces and that which is a production.
Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)=
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
"something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"
"information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
"something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim"
=Observations of real life activities (independent of nature, since I'm arguing that those are the processes of a Creator), real life productions, real life manufacturing, real life creations (art), real life development, real life construction, real life building, real life assembly ect ect, we know from real world observations that all those things require there to be a source to begin, evolve and accomplish anything.
Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.
Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?
Logic=
In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?
Conclusion=
Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves, it examines how things operate and reports an accurate depiction of that alone, it makes no claims or objections about a possible God. Science is a method WE use, it has no mind or knowledge of its own, it just examines what we feed it and what we put into it. It reveals what ingredients are in a recipe but makes no reference to a maker because that's not a factor it can reach. To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions. Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.
It is completely rational and logical to embrace a Theistic proposition of creation. Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes. In a nutshell, all the things mentioned above have an intelligent cause and a rational reason why anything or any processes even begin and produce results. Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.
Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
(I too was baptized as a child by being submerged into water. Unfortunately, I didn't understand the Luciferian symbolism in this ritual back then.)
I could do it on my own, but since you've educated yourself could you supply a link for that Luciferian ritual? you got my interest...
BTW, the practice of Catholic Priests baptizing babies makes my stomach ill, some of the things these guys do is pretty sick...
Watch this idiot slap this baby...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I have to ask this question and hope others can chime in with their opinions.Is it fair that any claim can be made without explanations and they are all considered legitimate, no matter what the claim?
All readers are free to read the logic and reasoning I used in my posts and at any time engage them. We're not talking about pigs flying, I gave you the basis of my argument and it's a rational basis. If you don't think it is then we can't move forward. But I respect your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
That's exactly what I'm waiting for; good reasoning, which would include explanations based on evidence. That's how it works.
Explanation-
a statement or account that makes something clear.
You can go back and find that in any one of my posts with explanations.
Evidence-
an outward sign : indication
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.This support may be strong or weak.
You can go back and find that in any one of my posts.
Evidence-
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
The available body of facts and information can be found in the overwhelming data base of religious and spiritual sources, that's up to you to source. That would be the method that correlates with the nature of what we are dealing with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
But, to invoke a Maker is your personal opinion
It may be, and one supported by good reasoning, but I'm also not the only one. Perhaps if it doesn't interest you or you're not willing to consider creation as a legit proposition maybe don't get involved in religious discussions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
That would then make the definition of "rational" null and void. That would mean it would be rational to believe pigs could fly. Is it rational?
You were never once asked to believe anything irrational.
I can't consider unexplained claims, especially when they are not weighted through evidence, correlation, logic or common sense, you provided none of that. No rational person would consider them.
Perhaps reevaluate what I wrote.
Again, if you choose to provide all of that with explanations, then they can be considered.
I'm not going over the same things continually, I'm also not going to be lectured what the processes entail when my argument is that the processes are created through an intelligent Source, that's WHY they occur. I said we could agree to disagree and then we would be done with the discussion, but you seem to want to discredit my position and so you can try, but it remains. Until you acknowledge it we can't move forward.
Since science has never found a Prime Mover, then the conclusion to that is obvious, that there is no evidence for a Prime Mover and that conclusion will stick until such evidence reveals itself. You can provide if you can and I'd be more than willing to consider it. So far, everything you've claimed is your personal opinion.
Science doesn't make claims about the Creator, we went over that. They point to the ingredients (recipe) not the Maker or one that puts them together. The evidence for that Maker moves over to spirituality and religion, since science is unable to reach that Reality.
But thanks for the opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Let me clarify: I am not at all arguing that Baptism in and of itself is a Luciferian rite. I'm arguing that the conflation of water submergence to Baptism is a manifestation of Luciferian influence; water submergence and reemergence is symbolic of Asar's reincarnation.
Yeah I caught that above, sorry about that.
When John states in Matthew 3:11 that he'd baptize with water of repentance, he also stated that someone mightier than him would baptize with the holy spirit and fire. Why are then no Christians walking into fire?
I always thought it was two individual processes, one.... Baptism being an outward confession or commitment with there being an outward ritual or sign and two....the baptism of the Spirit which is an internal process or undergoing with an internal commitment or sign. Kind of like a marriage per say where there is an outward ceremony or binding and then of course there is the binding of the two with inward commitments involving their love but I could be wrong of course. I was Baptized with water as a young kid so maybe I'm just partial to it. But my intentions were pretty much the above.
Because the language, "water" and "fire" are clearly metaphorical, and intended as such. What does John mean by Baptism? Complete spiritual acceptance of God. How is this achieved? If you are referring to a specific ritual, he doesn't mention any.
Okay I see what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree yet, but are you saying that John never literally Baptized Jesus in water?
I'm definitely a "Bible uses metaphorical language guy" but I always thought Baptism was with water submergence as a symbolic representation of purification but again, I guess it's an assumption based on what the normal understanding is of Baptism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm arguing that John's words are being used by Luciferians to conflate water submergence with Baptism.
I see, that's interesting (should have read lol), without reading through this thread what is it John was referencing and what does he mean my Baptism? or how is that achieved according to John?
Created: