Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
These reflected political divisions viz. Elohim vs. YHWH. Therefor, I know not to "believe" it was delivered to a Hebrew man (in reality probably an Egyptian Akhunatun) and therefor am aware there are many who "believe" the books of Moses to be something they are not.I don't "disbelieve" the Bible, I learned enough of Hebrew to read it in its original "language". However I know that the Hebrew language is actually derived from a single form viewed from 22 different perspectives, thus the real "language" predates Canaanite-Hebrew, and so I read it accordingly. It is nothing like the "English" translation(s) or even the Hebrew "story". It is more like a book of equations. For example,Genesis 1:1 is a torus field,Genesis 1:2 is the 'state' before a stable torus field,Genesis 1:3 is the three components of a stable torus fieldetc. and creation is described from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in as people read it.B'resh'yis (first word of Genesis) has over 900 ways to read/interpret. It can mean:In the beginning...(English)At the head of the summit...(Hebrew)Son (of/that is) fire (is) over time...(Aramaic)etc.Understanding the language prior to the Hebrews "adapting" it eliminates any/all possible bias(es) and allows me to see the problem(s) in Judaism and when/where they first arose. These problems would later compound into Christianity/Islam.
And how does he know this?
Again, God would speak on a different level in communicating with humanity (dumbed down) so that we, even those of lesser intellect, could understand Him (since He, by definition, knows all things). You can't have the same intellectual conversation with a two-year-old that you can with a thirty-year-old. Thus, you have to dumb down the conversation when speaking to the two-year-old (baby talk).Human beings have two ears and one mouth.
Two eyes too!
Abram had to head out of the land of Ur for a reason: if no listeny, no helpy.
God rewarded Abram through obedience. That obedience was credited to Abraham as righteousness.
That is because Isalm borrows from the Christian conceptual system of thought, not the other way around. Christianity expands and explains in more detail on the Judaic system of thought to make things clear in that it is a progressive revelation of the same God. It also explains why the Judaic system of worship failed. That reason is that Israel could not live up to the holiness and purity that is God by work or merit-based system in obeying Him (Exodus 24:3, 7).God brought some in Israel to the realization that His grace is sufficient for them and since they could not live up to work-based salvation, He not only met the requirements of doing that in Jesus Christ but also provided a better covenant of grace through Jesus, that those who reach out to Him can believe and live by. We, as Christians, live on the merits/works accomplished by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits to save us.The OT is a worked based demonstration that continually shows the failing of those who agreed to it to live up to it.How can the imperfect live up to the perfect? Only because of and by His grace and mercy!It is true Islam "borrows" from Christianity, as well as (mostly) Judaism.
Aberrant Christianity that is, and a different interpretation of parts of the Judaic OT. As well as Zoroastrianism, as well as the pagan gods of the area.
The rest is "belief"-based waffle.Christians are not necessarily victims if they interpret the Bible correctly. That would mean they had a true knowledge in the aspect of teaching or doctrine. Explain how you know your statement is so as opposed to just believing it to be so?Some did/do: Christ is certainly not an unreal thing.
The Messiah, the Christ, to be more specific, is a Person, not a thing.
It is just not a bloody man: it does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others (ie. transcending suffering of self) which only comes with knowing the original sin as it relates to blaming/accusing/scapegoating. Had Adam not attempted to blame another for his own fault, so-called evil would not have entered.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Evil is doing what is contrary to the goodness and nature of God.
The implication of the book of Genesis is each carries in/of their own being, their own iniquities, and with them they remain until acknowledged/reversed. If this is not done consciously, there are laws in/of the cosmos that intervene.
The implications are that humanity has sinned and needs to either restore that relationship with God by their own means or allow God to do it on their behalf through the one sufficient means He has given - Jesus Christ. The OT is a demonstration that those who agreed to a covenant with God (OT Israel) were never able to live up to that covenant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Knowledge is a positive belief that is also true to what is the case. You do not generally believe or put your trust in something that you think negatively about.You, acting as your highest authority (it's so because you know it when in fact you don't) or the ultimate reference point for knowledge, disbelieve the Bible. How well do you understand it? I bet not well and I would like to challenge you on such an assumption. I would hazard that you do not know because you cannot properly connect what is said from your bias and preconceived notions on what it says and its true meaning.Knowledge is not a positive belief, it is the negation of belief. Belief graduates into knowledge after falsified.
Thus belief comes first!
I know the first five books of "Moses" were not authored by Moses, but had four source authors J, E, P, D and a fifth R(edactor).
Not according to those closest to the writings. Jesus attributes the Pentateuch to Moses and what he wrote. So do others. But regardless, even if they were transcribed by others the words and thoughts are attributed to Moses and his revelation from God.
“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife and leaves no child, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother.
When he mentions Moses wrote for us he lists what is written in the Pentateuch.
But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
Jesus explains to them the things that come from Moses and the things Moses wrote about.
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
How can you have knowledge based on uncertainty? To know is to believe that which is true to what is. As I mentioned in your other post (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2896/debating-to-undermine-any-all-belief?page=1&post_number=20), knowledge is a justifiable true belief.Knowledge = True Belief.Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You have to start by believing something (first presuppositions; first proposition, the building block everything else is connected, or the chain of facts that the starting belief rests upon). Since you don't know how everything is connected in all its details you must start from a belief and work from that core supposition. Can you justify your belief? If so, then it is knowledge.As I mentioned in the other post: you have it backwards.Belief is a subcategory of knowledge.
If you don't know something you can't justify it as a true belief.
***
You have grown up isolated with no modern conveniences, are a vegetarian and eat everything uncooked, and have never touched steaming hot water before from a kitchen tap. You have seen mist and steam rising from a stream due to condensation (signifying the difference in temperature to those who know) but it means nothing to you. The mist has not burned you when you touched the water.
You are introduced to a modern kitchen and see the running water. Can you know the water from the tap is hot before you experience the sensation? Do you know that the mist and steam from the steam signifies a heat exchange? Once you experience the burn you have a belief that water from a kitchen tap is hot (you do not continue to believe nothing about the hot water or tap at all), a belief that corresponds to what is, thus you know one thing although not necessarily the complete knowledge of the water from the tap.
Now, what happens if you do not realize the difference between the hot water tap and a cold water tap? The water is again coming through the tap. Is your belief that you will get burned next time you put your hands under the tap necessarily justified? No, because you have no knowledge of the difference between the hot and cold taps, even though the water comes through the same faucet. If you see the steam/mist rising from the steam but it has never burned you, why would you believe the steam coming from the tap is going to burn you now? Again you have to rightly connect the parts to have a justifiable knowledge of the water tap.
You first have to connect water, stream, steam, in conjunction with hot water, tap, steam, plus the consequences of what you experienced to your belief system before you have knowledge that the steaming water from the tap will burn you. You have to believe there is a tap there before you use it. You have to believe that the tap will dispense water when turned on and hot water if you turn the hot water valve. You have to believe that hot water is also signified by steam coming from the faucet, which will burn you if you place your body parts under it. You have to believe there is a difference between the water from the stream and the water from the hot water tap. If you don't know what the tap does, you will be ignorant of its purpose. Thus, when you see it you must believe it has a purpose and that purpose must first be confirmed to your belief system before you know its purpose and can use it correctly.
***
You first have to believe something before you can know it. You start with a basic presupposition. (I.e., that water coming from the tap is hot and will burn me). If that presupposition pans out to what is the case, you have knowledge.
If you don't believe it is the case how can you know it?
Conversely, you can believe you know something but don't for the reason that it does not correspond to what is the case or you have not connected enough of the gray matter with the real.
Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-* knowing any/all *not* to believe (to a certainty)Belief-in-and-of-itself <-* trying belief for belief-based ignorance(s)Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* no conscious knowledge of ignoranceTrue Belief = Knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that belief. It is conscious knowledge of ignorance. The conscious justification never pertains to how the "belief" could be "true", but rather "false". That is conscious knowledge of ignorance.
Knowledge is true JUSTIFIED belief. It is what is the case and has been confirmed to your belief system. The knowledge comes once you presuppose/believe something that is confirmed to be the case.
You have to start somewhere. That start is your belief system. It is the core of your belief system, the things you first presuppose to believe other things.
If a personal "believes" something to be "certain" they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
Do you believe truth is necessary to know something?
Is truth something that is the case? If so, then there is a certainty of knowing it, once you understand what it is.
***
If a person "believes" something to be certain they are not ignorant if the belief is justifiably true. If it is justifiably true it is truly known.
Do you know the laws of logic (the laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle) are necessary to believe before you can make sense of any communication? The laws of logic would be self-evident since to deny these laws (and make sense) is to use them.
By saying, "I deny the laws of logic," you have used them in the denial. What you claim goes against what you actually say, so you refute your own statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Does it takes a "believer" to "believe" they are themselves *not* ignorant?
The question regarding any belief is whether it is true to what is the case. If you believe you are not ignorant just because you believe that proposition does not necessarily make it the case. Knowledge is justified true belief. Can a belief be shown to be true or reasonable? Only if what a believer believes is true can it qualify as knowledge of something? Otherwise, they are just as ignorant as those who are ignorant.
Does it thus take a "knowing" to "know" one is themselves ignorant?
If you are trying to make sense of something (to know) and believe the truth is you don't know it, then your belief could be knowledge. Does what you believe conforms to what is, that is that you, in fact, don't know it? If you believe you don't know something and indeed don't, then you are ignorant of that something and your belief is actually the case. If you believe you don't know something yet you do, then that is a false belief and not knowledge, for knowledge conforms to what is the case. Only when your belief corresponds to what is the case can you KNOW it, or in this case, know you are ignorant of knowing it.
What happens if one is ignorant while knowing not they are ignorant?
Then they deceive themselves.
They are certainly a "believer" and ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
True.
Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims?No: I know they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves. However, I do not "blame" them: I see them as victims.
So you do not believe everything you wrote. You have refuted knowing what you claimed you knew if that is the case.
That is why if I ever undermine the idolatrous houses of Christianity/Islam, I'd do it from the top-down. The "believers" do not know what tree they eat from.
You do not undermine Christianity. You create questions that have answers and reasonable answers that make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I will try to follow your reasoning.
i. Belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (?)
No, it has to be a true belief based on what is the "good" to be virtuous. Virtue implies good.
ii. evil is good (*without the need to define them*)
No, evil is evil. It has its own identity and that identity is not good. Calling evil good contradicts the law of identity. It does not make sense.
Just because you can think something does not necessarily make it so. You have to believe what is true before your view corresponds to the truth.
iii. satan is god
No, he is "a god." He is someone who people put in the place of God. There is only one true and living God and Satan is not Him.
One question.Who are so willing to believe?2 (any/all)1 KNOW0- I am (willing to)...4 BELIEVE3 (*not to*)Living: I am willing to KNOW (any/all / *not to*) BELIEVE...Death: I am willing to BELIEVE (any/all / *not to*) KNOW...
How can you know unless 1) you believe, 2) that belief corresponds to what is true.
If your belief does not correspond to what actually is the case your belief is not knowledge. It is false. Knowledge is that which is the case.
Another question.Would an all-knowing god not KNOW so-called satan *requires* BELIEF-in-and-of-itself?
God is all-knowing. He never started with a proposition. He always knew/knows all things, thus, God is not like humans in this sense. We have a beginning. We have a learning curve. When we know the truth we know as God knows a particular thing, but there again, we only know in part, not all the interconnections to our belief or we too would be omniscient.
Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-*tends towards any possible all-knowing god any/all *not* to believe
Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Knowledge is a true belief.
Belief-in-and-of-itself <-*satan certainly requires belief
Satan is not worthy of belief. Some do believe because they believe the wrong over the right, the evil over the good, the darkness over the light.
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-*believers who believe evil is good cause suffering/death
True. The question is how you arrive at the "good" without God? Why is what you believe good? How do you KNOW?
More:Is knowledge of ones own ignorance not needed to beget new knowledge *from* the same ignorance(s)?
Any belief has to start with some proposition, presupposing something (the core belief) to believe something else. Worldviews are webs of belief. They build on particular starting points. If the starting points are sound/true, the believes are knowledgeable of what is the case. If the belief is true it will have commonality with truth, such as thinking the laws of logic are needed to make sense of anything. Such thoughts are self-evident or necessary truths to know or make sense of anything else. They require that you believe them or else you refute yourself. You have to have a beginning, something else to work on.
The most basic of beginnings and a core-belief you suppose is either 1) God, or 2) chance happenstance is what we trace our origins to.
How you look upon that question is how your whole framework will be governed. One of those two positions is false, logically.
If so, how can all knowing be belief, if belief is required to (erroneously) believe one is knowing when one is not?
He is a necessary Being who does not have a start or end, knows all things as they are since the universe is His creation, thus there was never a time when He had to start believing one thing to know something else. He already knows all things. Thus, He is different than you or humanity in this respect. You are limited and finite. He is not. You live in a physical realm. He is Spirit and lives in the spiritual realm but His presence is also known in the physical realm He created by what is created and by His revelation of Himself. Concerning what is created/the universe, we witness His "fingerprints" in our discoveries of how the universe works. We can formulate the mathematical principles and laws that are discovered. They do not depend on us for their operation. They point to the Lawgiver. Both the macros and the micros are full of information and intelligence that we discover.
Mathematics and logic are a product of mindful being, yet we find the principles of mathematics and logic in the universe that we did not put there. That points to a far greater Mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Again, you have gone off on a tangent from the original statement (emboldened). Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims? Is your belief (only knowledge if it can be verified and justified as true) based on the verification of facts as they really are (is it a true account)? Only if you can demonstrate this with certainty (truth is a certainty - it expresses what is, it cannot be false), will I grant you know it as true?First, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"There is no tangent: at best, you/anyone could only ever "believe" I, or any, know what we know.
First, I request you type my name in the "Receivers" box or else I do not get a notification that someone has replied to my posts.
As to whether or not you know what you know, you are your own obstacle to that, not me. I know Christians and Muslims suffer "belief"-based ignorance.I know this because I tried/tested both Christianity and Islam and found them to be certainly ignorant.
That is fallacious reasoning. There are many logical fallacies associated with these two statements. I'll list just a couple.
It is a hasty generalization (https://www.thoughtco.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-1690919).
It is a fallacy of composition (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-fallacy-of-composition-250351).
It is a one-sided assessment with you as the final arbiter because you are stacking the deck and special pleading (https://www.thoughtco.com/stacking-the-deck-logical-fallacy-1692133).
It is just an assertion based on your belief and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Again: at best, you can only "believe" me that I know, but I myself know I know. I can't prove something to someone who has no conscious knowledge that they may themselves be subject to "belief"-based ignorance(s) unto which they vehemently cling to. It has to do with idol worship (not "physical objects").
Again, all knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You, as a human being, have to start with a belief, with something you have to trust, to form other beliefs. Beliefs work on a web of other beliefs starting with a core belief. The question is whether the core belief is a justifiably true belief.
You can't know unless you first believe.
When you say, "I know I know," not everything you think you know is known by you. If what you BELIEVE you know is proven to be false you did not really know it. It was a false belief.
As to your second question: your very asking it demonstrates you are ignorant of the problem-in-and-of-itself:GENESIS 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die....first, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"I don't eat from that tree.
Adam represent humanity (the federal head) in his choice to eat. It had implications for the rest of us too. He opened himself up to doubting God and did. Thus, relativism was born. He no longer relied on a fixed standard for knowledge and truth. His rejection of what God said was good and what God forbade resulted in Adam's descendants also looking at things from a relativistic and subjective standpoint, apart from God. God no longer "walked" and communed in close relationship with Adam. Adam was barred from God's intimate and close presence.
Death (which in this case in the Garden) was not physical in nature but a spiritual alienation or death/alienation from the presence of God. Adam died to that relationship on that day. Spiritual death or a close relationship was passed onto humanity that very day and Adam and Eve were not permitted to partake of the tree of life either and live forever physically.
Those who do, have a relative "evil" and are bound to be in conflict indefinitum. If you know, at best, one could only ever "believe" to know good and evil, the very "believing" to know it causes suffering and death. Say hello to "belief" in any god.
Again, Adam represented humanity so you are implicated in the judgment. You, like him, no longer enjoy that close relationship (that "walking" in the Garden with God). To once again experience that relationship Jesus told us we must be born again, restored to a right relationship with God
God permitted Adam free choice that was not influenced by other things. He told Adam that WHEN he ate the fruit, he would die. Adam died to God, in a close spiritual relationship, when he ate. On that day Adam knew the difference between good and evil. He had experienced God. Before that point of eating, Adam only experienced the goodness of God.
Knowledge is justified true belief. When Adam ate he knew the difference between good and evil. His belief corresponded to what is the case. He no longer enjoyed that close fellowship with God after that point in time.
By the way, does it not take a "believer" to "believe":
Yes, and you are a believer. You just don't happen to believe the same things I do. So, the question is whether your belief-system is a justified true belief (or knowledge) or a false belief system.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Corinthians 2:5 ESVThat your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
For one, your quote is an incorrect reference. It has to identify which letter, first or second.
So, without God, your faith or belief rests on the subjective, limited, relative opinions and views of like-minded limited, subjective, relative men. The question is which one(s)?
So you think science should be taught from a Christian perspective, correct?
I believe only one position is correct and that position is a God-oriented perspective. Granting this universe is created the Creator would be the source and ultimate knowledge in how He created it and every detail of it.
The question is which is the more reasonable belief and does the evidence really point to a solely naturalistic view? To decide you have to unpack the two beliefs, get to their core presuppositions and find how they are able to make sense of ultimate beliefs.
Naturalism can't make sense of ultimate beliefs. Thus, if you want to hold it you are welcome to it, but you will consistently be inconsistent in what you say and what you do. You will be living a contradiction.
I have no objection to both positions being taught. What I object to is when science is hijacked so that only one paradigm is investigated and looked at, when the orientation only looks at the data from a solely naturalistic viewpoint, when the evidence for the other side is totally ignored and when anyone holding such a position is ridiculed out of the scientific endeavour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, the question becomes who is actually right is there is no ultimate reference point? Is there such a thing without an ultimate, objective, absolute reference-point/measure?Here's a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy4THHeRJX8
What does this five-minute cartoon lampooning with poetic license a historic event have to do with an ultimate, objective, ultimate reference point or morality?
Which party is "in the right"?
That would depend on whether there is an ultimate, absolute, objective reference point. If not, both are exercising their preferences.
The one system of government is more oppressive and more limiting in freedoms than the other. It was spreading its influence around the world, hence, the cold-war.
How does the holy scripture apply to (fix/solve/illuminate) this type of scenario?
The reason is that if it is from God then we have such a fixed, ultimate measure - God. When God tells us it is wrong to murder or lie, it is wrong because those qualities and actions (lying and murder) are the opposite of God's nature and goodness. Thus, God is the "best" that illuminates light and darkness, goodness and evil. When we compare something to His revelation we can know what is objective and true in as much as He has revealed it.
Without God, it is, as you agree, relative and subjective. Without God, there is no fixed reference point you can identify, which means that any reference point can apply as long as those applying it have the means to do so. When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict. The question is which one since they are both bathed in relativism? How would you ever know? It is impossible to know rightness from such a system of thought. All you can know is what the other prefers or has the means to enact. There is no way of knowing goodness unless there is a "best" to reference the positions against as to there compliance with the best. If there is no "best" how will you ever know when something is better than something else? Positions would evolve and change but what makes that good? Because you like it? Well, what if I like the opposite? Then what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Christianity is not a belief based religion.
Scripture disproves that assertion. All quotes from the NASB.
Genesis 15:6 (NASB)
Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed that very moment.
When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They *said to Him, “Yes, Lord.”
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
And Jesus said to him, “‘If You can?’ All things are possible to him who believes.”
These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Jesus *said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
Many more believed because of His word;
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Certain heretics have taken the faith to be little more than intellectual assent, but the church has always recognized that the faith is a walk, not simple belief.
It requires a belief that God exists and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. There are certain things, that is you believe, you deny the faith, so the right belief is important. It is believing in what another Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, has done before God that I have no ability to do in to save me.
Blessed are the pure in heart, they will see God. How can you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind if you don't purify the heart?No, Christianity is a faith of sacred mysteries. Mysteries as we understand it are not puzzles to be solved so much as they are experiences.
The mystery has been revealed. What the OT saints and BELIEVERS watched and waited for is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,
but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.
By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,
that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,
to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself,
praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned;
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Oh, there is lots of reasoning there. It is not the kind you like since it is counter to what you believe and I find when someone is not sure of a position they lash out against an opposing position instead of answering the questions and refuting the claims.You’re a young Earth creationist. There’s no reasoning with someone who wholeheartedly believes in a magic sky daddy. Be honest. That’s what you believe in.
Very simply, there are two viable options to my mind; either we are here because of chance happenstance or because of a mindful Being.
Which is more reasonable?
Well, what do you find?
You find a universe with anthropic principles. You find laws and principles that explain how things work. You look for meaning, purpose, and information. Information can be made sense of, like the uniformity of nature. Why would you expect to find things continually running as they have in the past if the universe is a fluke? If there is no intent or agency behind the universe then chance happenstance is responsible. What can "chance" do? It does not have an ability.
As I said before, creationism and a young earth is a position I favour since Scripture is my highest authority and I have not seen a position that easily refutes it. I'm not a group-think, indoctrinate of dogma from youth, fan. I have not bought into the evolutional whale of a tail that my long distant cousin or ancient ancestor is a one-celled organism.
***
Your post shows more of the same bigotry and closed-mindedness. You are not willing to discuss the issues, just attack me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference.That is correct.
(Context of what follows)
Logically! The question is, why are you or I, if there is not objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter [right]?That is why we have conversations.
Well, the question becomes who is actually right is there is no ultimate reference point? Is there such a thing without an ultimate, objective, absolute reference-point/measure?
Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.
Where is the logic in two opposing and contradictory views regarding the same thing - -> rightness? (each opposing view claiming they are right) One, logically, has to be wrong.
Where do you start, logically speaking? I am right because I prefer to be? How does that make you right?
How can you persuade someone you are right if "right" is a shifting standard of preference. Let's call it for what it is --> preference/like/feelings.
Because I like or prefer something that does not make it right. It just makes it something I like or prefer.
Unless there is an ultimate standard or measure, rightness loses its identity. The law of identity is contravened. Thus, such a view as yours is illogical.
When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates mercenaries).
So you pay someone to side with you. What makes that right?
If there is no "best" to compare right and wrong from anything can pass as "right." If there is no "Best" how do you ever establish right? All you establish is the preference. Hitler preferred to kill Jews. What is your preference? I'm sure that you may say such things but you can't live consistently by them because as soon as you are in the line similar to Auschwitz you know it is no longer relative. Some things are just plain evil.
When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates cowards).
You (or however the "we" are) force your preference and opinions on others without ever knowing the "right!"
Again, it boils down to not what is right but what you like. If you have the means you will do whatever it takes to enforce your desires, your preferences. If not, you will be the slave of others. That worldview makes nothing right. It is bankrupt of goodness for it has no value system, it can't distinguish right, just pleasure, pain, and preference.
When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates slaves).
Thus, all the wars fought throughout humanity have not been because something is "good" but because those with the more might enact their will and preference over those who are weaker, which you can't even call evil in the case of what Hitler did because morality is a shifting standard of preference. It makes a mockery of morality.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
If you want to be all pseudo-psychological I could just say you’re projecting.The difference between us is that I’ve been admitting when I don’t know.I say I don’t know, you say God did it. Maybe I should reference the dragon in my garage more often.
I know I have hit a nerve when someone ignores virtually everything I have said or acts hostile to me with ad hominem putdowns.
Just like you, I have a finite mind that does not understand oh so many things. Sometimes I admit when I don't know things, but I also use my intellect to investigate important claims and to weed out what is true and what is fluff. I gauge things against God's word to its truth claims.
The difference between you and me is that God, through His Holy Spirit, has mercifully granted me His grace to hear His Word, the message. You do not want to hear it for what it is, even though it as plain as day. Thus, when you do hear the word, you block your ears to the message or dismiss it. Therefore, you don't know God, only about Him. You probably think I can't know God because you doubt His message and existence.
God gives grace to the humble in spirit but resists the proud of spirit who rebel against Him.
James 4:5-7 (NASB)
5 Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”? 6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (NASB)
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
You do not hear the message. You do not let God speak to you via the word and through His Spirit because you continually deny Him existence, or simply ignore Him. The Spirit speaks to the Christians' inner self via His Word, for those who are able by His grace to hear His voice (i.e., the words of His Mind, in what He has spoken and has been written down, interacting with our spirits).
The difference between you and the Christian is that the Christian knows Him who has the answers and has revealed some things. You (unless you borrow from the Christian worldview) are in a relative, subjective existence in all things because you have no absolutely objective source as your reference point.
You look to the "wisdom" of this world, to subjective relative people whose opinions change on any issue. The wisdom I look to is above and beyond such nonsense.
and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
I don't know what you think in your mind to yourself. Those thoughts are only known by you and those you care to reveal them. I only know what you reveal in your written or oral words, but those words also reflect your heart, your inner self, what you hold close to you, what you value or hold as most dear.
God's Spirit dwells with the Christian spirit (those in Christ) to understand the simplicity of the Word of God. I hear and can understand it for it is plain. You cannot even hear it because of your enmity with God. You tune it out. That is my witness with unbelievers of God. Thus, your inference or thought that I or others don't know in regards to God is wrong. God's word is foolish to you. I can't convince you. I have learned a long time ago that you can't convince a person against their will. That person may grant lip service but nothing else. It takes an act of God's Holy Spirit to hear the message. That is why Jesus said, "You must be born again" (new birth, regenerated in spirit, changed by God, the scales lifted from our eyes) to see or enter His kingdom.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Look, there’s no way of having a rational discussion if your whole world view is based on presuppositions (large ones at that)which aren’t based in scientific objective reality. I’ll ask again, is there any foundation of reality that we can agree to?
My discussion has been rational. Every worldview has core presuppositions it holds that if compromised you would no longer hold that worldview or you would hold it irrationally. I believe the latter is the case with you.
IMO, simply put, you are avoiding the conversation with excuses because you know deep down your worldview is devoid of the answers to the questions I have been asking you.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Are you trying to give me an aneurysm?I wouldn’t be surprised if you were an anti-vaxxer and flat earther.
Thanks for the ad hominems!
You asked, I explained. Then you dropped any discussion.
If you have a serious question or response I will be glad to contend.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Corinthians 2:5 ESVThat your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:5, yes.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
“I believe that God has designed us to adapt and change to our environment but not the change from one kind of being to another.”Okay, let’s ignore inconvenient science like genetics, palaeontology, etc.
Did you know that many branches of sciences had there beginnings in theistic thinking? Scientists were looking for ways to explain God's creation by trying to think His thoughts after Him. The consequence of ideas with the Age of Reason turned the thinking from God as the measure to humanity as the measure. Thus, a paradigm shift took place in how we view things. The focus switched from theistic thinking to naturalistic thinking. With evolutionary thought and Darwinism dominating the thoughts of science the interpretation changed.
Thus, science is investigated from a purely naturalistic perspective.
Do you know the thought experiment “The Ship of Theseus”?It deals with the metaphysics of identity. If a ship has all its parts replaced over time, is it still fundamentally the same ship?What about some of its parts replaced?... What about only one part replaced? I just find it interesting.
No, I do not know it.
As a theist, I believe there is a difference between a property and a substance in its identity. A property can change over time but a substance cannot. A ship is a property. I believe a mindful being is not. You are you from conception onwards throughout your life. You can lose an arm or acquire a disease but that does not change who or what you are. You still function as you. You are still a personal being. You still have the same identity. Although you go through different stages of growth there is an essence to you that is different from physical matter. You can still function as you. If a ship loses its parts it can no longer function as a ship. Thus, it loses its identity. You can replace the parts and as long as they are the same kind of part the ship still continues to function as a ship and retains its identity.
I.e.,
Did you know the ancestors of chihuahuas are wolves? Took under 50,000 years for that to happen. How does that compare to 4,500,000,000 years?Or are you young Earth creationist? If so you would have to ignore geology and anthropology as well
Yes, a chihuahua and wolf are all from the same kind. We can breed dogs with other dogs. We can't breed a dog with a pig or cat. So, because of similarities (we all share the same earth and live to some extent off the same environments and vegetation thus, we would naturally share some common traits and features). The jump comes when we start jumping from one kind to another. That takes a leap of faith since we do not witness it happening in everyday life. Since you were not there to witness it there is also an interpretation and assumption of the data. Being a naturalist would require a different interpretation than that of theism. One looks at the evidence only from the natural viewpoint. The other sees the natural pointing to the supernatural.
I believe the evidence points to the earth being young from a biblical standpoint, yet science has a different paradigm and different way of looking at the evidence. That is the focus that has been indoctrinated into us from a very early age. We are taught from a naturalistic perspective. We get used to thinking from that paradigm alone. I'm also aware that some theists look for an explanation in theistic evolution. I have difficulty understanding how they reconcile that position from a biblical standpoint. My highest authority is not that of humanity, granting the biblical God as my core presupposition (and from that presupposition I can make sense of existence). A naturalist position is by default nature and the material realm. Science has directed the explanation to a purely physical and natural explanation. Any explanation that goes against the main paradigm is ridiculed and made fun of.
I do not have to ignore geology or anthropology. I just tackle them from a somewhat different standpoint in regards to origins. Since Darwinism exploded on the scene there has been a focus to include it as the most reasonable explanation. There are many problems with Darwinism that tend to be ignored (i.e., missing links, uniformitarianism, time, looking at the present as the key to the past, biases, etc).
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Thanks for the concession, but my hope is that it engaged your thinking and that you thought about it in a more thorough way.When I said you won, I was referring to the game of endurance it turned into.Do you believe in evolution?
It depends on what you mean by "evolution."
I believe that God has designed us to adapt and change to our environment but not the change from one kind of being to another. So, we evolve in that some of us have darker skins than others, but as a human being, we are different than the animals.
Your explanation, if a naturalist or materialist, would be that we evolve from a common ancestor millions of years previously, into all kinds of diverse life forms. You take that presuppositional proposition by faith since you were not there to observe beginnings. You build the worldview (or others have for you) based on particular biases and myopic thinking. From the data, usually, a naturalistic worldview reads into the data an interpretation that they try to falsify and can't because they manipulate the data from within the naturalistic box. Anything unexplainable is left for a later time and more knowledge of the data by such catchphrases as "we do not currently know but science is working on it." One of the basic assumptions of a naturalistic worldview is the present is the KEY to the past. All we have is now so we make assumptions based on the present as being the same or similar to the past. What is more, your worldview does not have what is necessary for complete knowledge of origins, thus science of origins (scientism - look it up) begins with speculation on the past and builds a worldview on what is likely until another worldview and more data that does not comply with the existing data supersedes it, thus creating a paradigm shift.
Granting God exists I can have a surety. Without God, we cannot get the big or complete picture since our minds are so limited, subjective, and not all-encompassing. Thus, it comes to a question of what is more reasonable to truly know or how it is possible to make sense of unless God exists?
But you/science continually look for answers. Why would you expect to find them in a universe that has no reason or purpose to it, yet you do. As I mentioned before, God makes sense. A universe by chance happenstance does not and you live inconsistently by adopting such a worldview, but that is your choice. I say your belief is irrational. It can't explain itself. It does not have a means of explanation from where you start from or from your core presuppositions.
Is the Christian worldview rational? I believe I can demonstrate reasonably it is. Is it logical? I believe, again, I can demonstrate it reasonably.
The options are you can continue to live as if nothing ultimately matters or you can investigate purpose and reason and what makes sense.
Sense or nonsense, those are your options.
If you want to know (personally, as opposed to knowledge of the concept of God) God you first have to believe He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Continuing from your debate:
For Fundamentalists and Apologists to say this is a God, simply due to a lack of understanding seems then, rather fallacious thinking, as we are attributing unknown wonder to that a being with wondrous power, that translates so much into other aspect of human lifestyle, like religious theism.
Is it from a lack of understanding or from a reasonable understanding?
How is it fallacious?
Either we attribute God, gods, or impersonal, unintentional, mindless, random, chaotic, chance happenstance to the universe.
Which is more reasonable, to think that from conscious, personal, knowing Being other personal conscious beings come or we are a product of natural processes that a random chance by nature of such a worldview?
What we are wrongly assuming, is that whatever this mystical non-understood potentially scientific or natural process is, people who advocate for the KCA's accuracy assume that since we cannot quantify it currently in our realm of understanding, that it is an all powerful deity who controls every aspect of material existence.
Or you presuppose the opposite which has no purpose or reason yet you continually find meaning and purpose in examining the universe, including in yourself. Not only that, how do you get uniformity of nature (things continuing to happen in the same manner so that we can formula multiple laws and principles from the universe. There would be no reason in such a universe why such things would continue to happen is the same manner they have been seen to, by chance happenstance, nor is such a view experientially demonstratable, IMO, although you could theorize on it. Lots of things can "work in theory" yet you cannot demonstrate them experientially.
Not only is this an argument from ignorance, isn't this also a false dichotomy to assume that everything was created from nothing, or a God? Why can't there be a plethora of other unknown options attributed to the amazing phenomena of life?
Go ahead and list some of those other reasonable explanations of life.
I see a few reasons why anything exists.
1) It was created to exist from something or someone that is self-existing.
2) It is here purely by chance happenstance --> it just happened --> thus there is no agency or intentionality to it since it is not mindful.
3) It always existed.
4) It is an illusion.
5) I don't care (pure total ignorance that explains virtually nothing about existence except disinterest).
And why do you care enough to debate the topic of God's existence? Is your subjective, limited opinion something that I can know what truly is from?
My best answer to explain this jump in conclusion, is we are forming opinions based on historical mythology and social constructs already in place from media outlets and learned behaviors.
That is one opinion, yet I do not believe it, and have reasonable and logical arguments to refute it or at least cause serious doubt as to such constructs that are devoid of the biblical God.
So the choice is still yours. Do you want to believe that ultimately nothing matters and ultimately nothing is meaningful? If so, why are you being inconsistent and acting as it does?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@David
Kalaam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
***
You said in your debate:
The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentTheists commonly refer to the KCA when arguing for the existence of a deity.
True, but is that unreasonable? Is it more plausible than other explanations for two premises? Is the conclusion warranted/reasonable?
If not inside the box then outside the box.
IOW's, something can't create itself or begin to exist by means of itself when it does not exist. It would have to be the source of its own existence. It is a self-refuting principle to say that something creates or is responsible for making itself. God, on the other hand, being eternal and outside the spacial, time, matter continuum (or physical realm), without beginning or end, could be a source of the universe that has a beginning. What else can? Blind chance indifferent happenstance? How does that have ABILITY to do anything? You would have to ascribe some agency, some intent, to chance. Chance is nothing but a concept. It expresses a possibility or possibilities. What can "chance" do?
It is a pretty big philosophical claim, and there is a lot to debate about the premises it raises.
So is the other side of the equation, so what? You either start with one or the other. One (God) has reason and intelligence, Mind and logic; the other is devoid of these qualities. Only personal, intelligent, mindful, conscious being would be reasoning.
So a worldview devoid of God has that irrational aspect to its belief system which starts with what? Nothing? Why? No reason? How? Unsure?
So, it would be your naturalistic worldview that lacks what is necessary to understand the whys and hows of existence.
A whole debate can easily center around debunking this argument, however since the resolution is broader than this argument itself, I'll try to summarize the rebuttals into a few key points.The KCA is self- refuting, The first cause, and the KCA being an argument from ignorance.
No, the KCA is an argument of reasoning, intelligent beings. God is the necessary position in coming to the truth of origins since (let me guess) you don't know it. You are not necessary for the universe or for sustaining it, are you? Why do you think chance happenstance is? That is your materialistic, naturalist presuppositional starting point, and I do not believe it is reasonable in any way. Either chance or intention. Either chance or personal, conscious Being.
If we are to grant that everything has a cause, and still make a case for a God to have created everything, the cosmological argument than has to explain how the deity exists; which is why the KCA uses strict verbiage in it's premises.
I would beg that that would be the case of the uncreated naturalistic universe. The biblical God is a revelation. There are various reasonable and logical arguments that verify that particular God (I would argue more so than any other "God" belief system).
The first premise, if accepted "Whatever begins to exist has a cause", frames the argument specifically to cater towards a pre-conceived agenda for theism.
Just like the argument, 1) "Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause." The argument is specifically oriented to a pre-conceived agenda also. So what, and what is more reasonable? Let me repeat, "what is more reasonable?"
We can specifically the word "Begins" to see this, suggesting that a God already existed. Obviously the question then is, if nothing was needed to cause a God, how does God surpass the 'irrefutable' logic of causation in the following premises?
Because He would be a self-existing necessary being, not deriving His existence from something else. That would be self-evident to such a worldview belief.
What is the first actually is the first cause? A proper agnostic-atheistic answer would be that the first cause was created by natural scientific causes that we as humans (simple animals) cannot grasp or understand at our current stage of scientific research.
If you cannot grasp it then how can you logically or reasonably rule out God as that cause? Yet you construct your whole worldview on a purely naturalistic, perhaps materialistic, starting point. That is definitely a bias and I would argue that it refutes itself in many, many ways from our experience of the world and universe.
KCA is a logical argument. You question its soundness. On what basis?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Witty, but something tells me disingenuous since you should know your own name. I imply the answer by your shiftiness. (^8Not even Jesus can help you with this one mate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
R/Swoosh
Which means? Was that a yes or no in response to my previous question regarding your name being Jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
The thread title is asking if Jesus is me?
That is what you are reading into it. It is asking if a specific person, Jesus, was a liar or lunatic. There are many lunatics (of which Jesus is not one) but is your name also Jesus?
PS. I do not agree with your assessment of the KCA in relation to the biblical God revealed in Scripture (in your debate), either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
If you are insinuating I am Jesus, you are wrong.
I'm curious to know where anyone on this thread has referred to you?
Since you are not mentioned, to my knowledge, it must not have been in connection to you whatever and whoever you are responding to since you supply no context or any other dialogue or reference point.
Created:
Posted in:
Yet he asked God to forgive the Romans after he insulted God.Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up His garments by casting lots.During His first coming, He came to make atonement for the sins of those who would believe in Him. Thus, He forgave them for this sin, yet held them accountable during His Second Coming in AD 70 for their rejection of Him and all those He had sent to them.But his first coming was to save the house of Israel the Jews!!4.[1] Jesus was a liar before and after his death.Before: Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.[1] He was called many things by those who did not believe in Him. So what? What do the Scriptures teach? They teach the opposite of what you are teaching. Thus, if you lived during the 1st-century Galatians 1:6-8 would have applied to you.The scriptures tell us Jesus was rejected by the Jews. He was mocked, beaten and ridiculed by the Romans and finally crucifie.But scriptures tell us Jesus lives in his father's house and works as a house keeper preparing rooms for guests.John 14:My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.As a human, He lived in obedience to fulfill all God's righteous requirements of humanity. So what?Jesus said all authority was given to him, yet he ends up a housekeeper in heaven preparing rooms for guests.5. Jesus claimed he was sent by God to fulfill the laws of the prophets.True. He became human to do this. Thus, in addition to His godhood, He took on human nature. In the One Person of Jesus, there are two natures.Why did he pick the worst human qualities? Jesus was despised, ugly and held in low esteem. He behaved like a demon possessed madman.Daniel 9:25 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’In the middle of the ‘seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the templehe will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.The fulfillment of the seventy weeks of years is explained quite well and detailed by Philip Mauro (for anyone interested).When Jesus was asked when these things would happen he was clueless.He was acting in His humanity to fulfill all righteousness, thus as already explained in Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2, He acted solely in His before resurrection appearances as a human being, not using His godly prerogative but relying on the Father and the Spirit.Matthew 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”And, in His human capacity, He explains to THEM all things that will happen but not the exact day or hour of the occurrence, just the signs that would lead up to His coming again.it was Daniels prophecy. Jesus was not aware of its details. He could only shrug his shoulders.Jesus also tells them elsewhere that when the Spirit, whom He will send, comes to them He [the Spirit] will guide them into all truth. He will take what is known by Him [Jesus] and the Father and transfer it to them.That was necessary because Jesus was incoherent and spoke mostly in parables that no one understood.Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.Is it any wonder that Peter lied about Jesus and Judas betray him.Explained above.The Jews rejected Jesus and the Romans crucified him?Their hearts, ears, and eyes were not open to their Savior as stated over and over again in the NT, as prophesied in the OT.Daniels said the Romans would cut him off. The Jews met all the conditions set in Daniel. Jesus could not stop the Romans.Is it any wonder that 2 billion Christians picked a demon possessed madman a liar and lunatic to die for their sins. Only Christians believe an illegitimate Jewish bastard name Jesus died for their sins 2000 years ago.Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups.You are mistaken and do not know the Scriptures in your deception.Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.Ah, yes, the great scholar who knows nothing and misleads any who would be daft enough to believe his lack of guidance!My research data matches the conclusion. Jesus was rejected and crucified because he was a blasphemous liar and a lunatic.Even the Pope declared Jesus a failure and the cross the great failure of God.
In the future when you engage in a discussion lay it out properly as to who said what, please. I don't like having to sift through two lines of thought as if only one person is writing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Good to know you believe everything you typed, blaming Muslims, Christians and characters in books you think don't exist for the demise of the world's morality. I'm glad to know you believe so strongly in not believing.It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them). Any all-knowing god would certainly know any/all *not* to "believe".
Again, you have gone off on a tangent from the original statement (emboldened). Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims? Is your belief (only knowledge if it can be verified and justified as true) based on the verification of facts as they really are (is it a true account)? Only if you can demonstrate this with certainty (truth is a certainty - it expresses what is, it cannot be false), will I grant you know it as true?
First, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"
People who "believe" while having no conscious knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to their "belief" are necessarily ignorant. That is what defines ignorance: lack of knowledge. If a person just "believes" and "believes" ongoing, it is the same as satan:
How can you have knowledge based on uncertainty? To know is to believe that which is true to what is. As I mentioned in your other post (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2896/debating-to-undermine-any-all-belief?page=1&post_number=20), knowledge is a justifiable true belief.
Knowledge = True Belief.
Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You have to start by believing something (first presuppositions; first proposition, the building block everything else is connected, or the chain of facts that the starting belief rests upon). Since you don't know how everything is connected in all its details you must start from a belief and work from that core supposition. Can you justify your belief? If so, then it is knowledge.
...the expression of being bound in an ongoing (indefinite) state...Knowledge serves to know what *not* to "believe" such to avoid it, and I know not to "believe" either the Bible (the first five books of which are the Torah, themselves derivative of four independent source authors J, E, P, and D with a 5th R(edactor))
Knowledge is a positive belief that is also true to what is the case. You do not generally believe or put your trust in something that you think negatively about.
You, acting as your highest authority (it's so because you know it when in fact you don't) or the ultimate reference point for knowledge, disbelieve the Bible. How well do you understand it? I bet not well and I would like to challenge you on such an assumption. I would hazard that you do not know because you cannot properly connect what is said from your bias and preconceived notions on what it says and its true meaning.
nor ... are the perfect words of any inspired creator.
Again, God would speak on a different level in communicating with humanity (dumbed down) so that we, even those of lesser intellect, could understand Him (since He, by definition, knows all things). You can't have the same intellectual conversation with a two-year-old that you can with a thirty-year-old. Thus, you have to dumb down the conversation when speaking to the two-year-old (baby talk).
At best, if they ever were, there is a needed emphasis on were for certainly no longer being such. If one looks closely, one finds history repeats itself between the two: addition of diacritical markings, redactions and modifications etc.
That is because Isalm borrows from the Christian conceptual system of thought, not the other way around. Christianity expands and explains in more detail on the Judaic system of thought to make things clear in that it is a progressive revelation of the same God. It also explains why the Judaic system of worship failed. That reason is that Israel could not live up to the holiness and purity that is God by work or merit-based system in obeying Him (Exodus 24:3, 7).
God brought some in Israel to the realization that His grace is sufficient for them and since they could not live up to work-based salvation, He not only met the requirements of doing that in Jesus Christ but also provided a better covenant of grace through Jesus, that those who reach out to Him can believe and live by. We, as Christians, live on the merits/works accomplished by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits to save us.
The OT is a worked based demonstration that continually shows the failing of those who agreed to it to live up to it.
How can the imperfect live up to the perfect? Only because of and by His grace and mercy!
Ps. the Christians/Muslims are the first victims of their own ideology.
Christians are not necessarily victims if they interpret the Bible correctly. That would mean they had a true knowledge in the aspect of teaching or doctrine. Explain how you know your statement is so as opposed to just believing it to be so?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I am not denying the mind of God or the omniscience of God. In fact I am openly declaring it.
Okay then! I am trying to clear up your wording, for your wording seems to suggest otherwise.
I am saying that nature is as the incarnation of God's mind much in the same way that Christ is the incarnation of God's word. I say much in the same way, because they are one in the same. Christ is the divine wisdom of Proverbs 8.
One and the same; I take it you mean the Father and Son, and I take it you mean in essence and nature, not the same person.
I see no problem with this as long as you separate that Mind from what has been made in the sense that a block of wood is not God. A block of wood is something God created via His Mind. Although it conveys to humanity something significant about His Mind (the power, the ability, the diversity, the order, the beauty, information about God) it does not equal His Mind. He spoke it into existence and sustains it, like everything else, via His Mind. The identity of God is not the same as the identity of a block of wood. God is Spirit. A block of wood is physical. God does not equal a block of wood is another way of saying it. You, Mopac, are not what you create although they reflect your mind. If you created a wooden carving of a man and I cut off its arms I would not be cutting off your arms.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Thanks for the concession, but my hope is that it engaged your thinking and that you thought about it in a more thorough way.Alright, you win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
It is not necessary to "believe" in things before/while knowing them.
Back to the starting point. YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE (presuppose something as true). You can't know something unless you first believe it. The question is whether that belief is justifiably true. Facts have to be known in relation to other facts before justified true belief takes place.
Some things are self-evident truths such as that you have to start with them to believe or know anything (i.e., logic). You have to believe the laws of logic (presuppose) to make sense of anything else. If you did not believe them you would not use them. These things (laws of logic) are not empirical in nature thus they can't be known empirically. But you have to believe in self-evident truths such as the laws of logic to justify other truths.
***
So, eliminate God and tell me how you get these truths since your starting point or basic presupposition (the origin of everything would be material and natural) would be a universe devoid of personal being, thus non-intentional, chaotic (not ordered), random happenstance (chance). The laws of logic do not comply with a materialistic or natural standard for such standards are empirical in their nature.
Your starting point or most basic presupposition is naturalistic whereas mine is personal and knowable in as much a He has made Himself knowable. I believe God has placed these self-evident truths in the universe and in our being so that we may know Him even as we know about Him. The laws of logic and the laws of mathematics are not something we invent but something we discover. We, so to speak, think God's thoughts after Him; thoughts that are eternally true by there very nature (i.e., 2+2=4; law of identity -> A=A), but require mindfulness to discover them. So, we witness this mindfulness in the very running of the universe. We, as conscious, thinking beings, discover laws and principles that seem to have us in mind. These principles and laws are so precise that we are able to express them in detailed or simple mathematical equations (i.e., E=mc2) that defy and mean nothing to the natural world alone, devoid of minds. These discoveries convey to the astute thinker there is a greater and necessary Mind functioning that has created and sustains the universe.
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.This assertion is so ABSURD it is the biggest blunder philosophy has ever made.
Not at all. The one (knowledge) is a subcategory of the other (belief). Knowledge is justified true belief. That is the difference.
Not only this but we humans start with our ultimate presuppositions or propositions and work from those. If those presuppositions are not grounded in the truth then we build our whole worldview on shaky ground, on something that is not grounded in truth.
Thus, you either start with God and work from that presupposition or you start with nature, or materialism, or self, as the first or ultimate starting point and work from there outwards into your connected web of beliefs.
The problem from naturalism that many Christians have developed in not starting with God is that if you start with an untrue belief system, a system that excludes God as the starting point, thus, you continually run into contradictions that you solve by borrowing from the Christian framework to make sense of things. Thus, your inconsistency (you do not exclusively work from your starting or original framework at true) is that while you start from one framework you continually borrow from another to make sense of anything, ultimately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
So what do you believe about what you have written?Generally: I only believe in possibility.
That is not the question.
What does that particular statement mean?
What do you believe about what you have written (OP)? Anything? Nothing? Do you believe it is true what you have written?
Do you believe it is not true?No, I know it is not true.Knowledge pertains to knowing degrees of uncertainty: I know language has limitations, and therefor do not "believe" in language for knowing them. One need not "believe" in language at all. That doesn't mean one can not know where its usefulness begins and ends.
Knowing degrees of uncertainty??? How can you know something that is uncertainty? It seems an oxymoron. If you know it, then it is no longer uncertain.
***
Knowledge is justified true belief.
"That snow is white in colour."
How can you know it unless you first believe snow is white? If you believe snow is red in colour your belief is not knowledge, it is not true. You could also be colour blind and what you think you know you do not because you have to believe particular propositions that are connected to other propositions that go back to a first presupposition.
Someone, in first showing snow to you, may have said, "This is snow and snow is white in colour."
You either believe what he/she is telling you or you do not. You have to start (basic presupposition) somewhere, and that starting point is presuppositional when first thinking something or in discussing origins and one time events that no one was there to see. Thus, it is a belief. You have faith in that belief, that starting point, or you tend not to believe it.
I can say, "Snow is red in colour." I can say, "I know snow is red in colour." Is that a true belief?
Thus, "knowledge is a subcategory of belief: to know something is to believe it." Van Til Apologetic, Reading and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 159
Knowledge involves belief. It is the mental affirmation of believing in that which is true. Belief is a positive attitude and adherence to something, towards some proposition that you or I rely on. For it to be actual knowledge it must qualify as true belief.
***
Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed
There are three kinds of faith; blind faith, reasonable faith, or unreasonable faith. Faith is belief.
The Christian faith is based on a reasonable belief, a necessary belief to make sense of anything, ultimately. God is self-evident to your mind, even though you deny Him outwardly in what you say and do. Inwardly, you still affirm Him by what you think about Him in your denial of Him. When you argue against Him in your denial you conceptualize Him in your denial.
***
Knowledge is justified true belief.
"That snow is white in colour."
How can you know it unless you first believe snow is white? If you believe snow is red in colour your belief is not knowledge, it is not true. You could also be colour blind and what you think you know you do not because you have to believe particular propositions that are connected to other propositions that go back to a first presupposition.
Someone, in first showing snow to you, may have said, "This is snow and snow is white in colour."
You either believe what he/she is telling you or you do not. You have to start (basic presupposition) somewhere, and that starting point is presuppositional when first thinking something or in discussing origins and one time events that no one was there to see. Thus, it is a belief. You have faith in that belief, that starting point, or you tend not to believe it.
I can say, "Snow is red in colour." I can say, "I know snow is red in colour." Is that a true belief?
Thus, "knowledge is a subcategory of belief: to know something is to believe it." Van Til Apologetic, Reading and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 159
Knowledge involves belief. It is the mental affirmation of believing in that which is true. Belief is a positive attitude and adherence to something, towards some proposition that you or I rely on. For it to be actual knowledge it must qualify as true belief.
***
Definition of belief
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion: something believed
There are three kinds of faith; blind faith, reasonable faith, or unreasonable faith. Faith is belief.
The Christian faith is based on a reasonable belief, a necessary belief to make sense of anything, ultimately. God is self-evident to your mind, even though you deny Him outwardly in what you say and do. Inwardly, you still affirm Him by what you think about Him in your denial of Him. When you argue against Him in your denial you conceptualize Him in your denial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
It requires belief for you to use language. You have to believe words have meaning.This is not true.
Do you believe it is not true?
It does not require belief for anyone to use language: they can acknowledge its capabilities and limitations accordingly. This is not a "belief", this is a knowledge in/of the degree to which "language" has application/limitation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
RE: "BELIEF"Usage:---belief - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty (ie. unknown)knowledge - the sum immediate conscientiousness of any body (as attained to) concerning any/all matters
*not* to be wholly "believed" (in) on the basis of such to be 'known' (ie. as a body of 'knowledge') to
certainly contain some degree(s) of (relative) uncertainty and/or 'known' falsity;
as well as, any/all conscientiousness of (the existence of) fixed principles
(as attained to, in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (ie: temperance of) the same body.negation - to know to a certainty that any tried/tested belief-based assertion(s) is not true---Does so-called Satan not explicitly *require* belief-in-and-of-itself, in order that any believer "believe" Satan is God (ie. confusion)?Does it not take any "believer" to "believe" evil is good? ( ie. conflation, whatever they may be...)How does one ultimately know any/all *not* to "believe"? (to avoid Satan/evil...?)...what "belief"-in-and-of-itself is to Satan,"knowing"-in-and-of-itself is to God (...who is all-knowing?)Of...?...any/all *NOT* to "BELIEVE"...?Would an all-knowing god not "know" any/all *not* to "believe"?If so, read 0-1-2-3-4 then 0-4-3-2-12 (any/all)1 KNOW(ledge)0- (I am willing to...)4 BELIEVE(-based ignorance)3 *NOT* totrending towards all-knowing god: 0-1-2-3-4I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *NOT* to BELIEVE = TREE OF LIFE(Truth by Way of Negation of any/all "Belief"-based ignorance)trending towards all-believing satan: 0-4-3-2-1I am willing to BELIEVE, *NOT* to KNOW (any/all) = TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL("Belief"-based ignorance due to good vs. evil / us vs. them / believer vs. unbeliever dualism etc. hundreds of millions dead)Genesis 2:17 (KJV)But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.Truth by Way of Negation leaves only the Truth of the Way of the Living (whatever is true can not be falsified).Some Q.Who are so willing to calling themselves BELIEVERS and what are they willing to BELIEVE?Are they attempting to consciously try/test their "belief" for ignorance(s) in pursuit of more knowledge?Are they aware (ie. conscious of) of their own ignorance and/or do they acknowledge it?Who "believes" to be in possession of a god-book?Who "believes" in a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol for any/all of humanity?Who "believes" to be fighting in a cause of a "belief"-based god?What would any all-knowing god need with "belief" if god is knowing satan requires it?Why would any all-knowing god use the same currency (ie. belief) as satan?Who would want "believers" to "believe" that "belief"-in-and-of-itself is a virtue?All-knowing is by way of endlessly trying belief, butnot all belief is by way of endlessly trying to know all.All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.Willing to debate against any/all "belief"-based (mono)theism as necessarily ignorant.
So what do you believe about what you have written?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So, I want you to tell me, from a universe that has no intention behind it (i.e., not created by an omniscient Mind), why uniformity of nature should continue to happen as it has done in the past and present into the future?Ignoring the framing of your question—I don’t know. I’m pretty sure the scientific consensus is “I don’t know” as well.I think it would be more accurate to say that God preceeds mind, but the way that God manifests a mind in creation is through nature.
God "proceeds" mind? God first, then mind or God first, then OTHER minds? Is God not a mindful being?
God manifests His Mind through creation - yes!
Nature itself is as the "mind" of God.
No, it is not the mind of God. It displays His Mind.
Nature is part of what He created.
I would like to reiterate though that God is of a different nature than created things, and so God truly preceeds mind.
So, instead of "from mindful Being comes other minds" you have from mindless God comes mindful being?
This preceeding happens much in the same way that the divine nature of The Son preceeded the human nature. One is eternal nature, the other is temporal by nature. One has no beginning and end, the other begins to be and ceases to be.
The Son's humanity has no end.
One is a completely non-contingent existence subsisting by itself, the other is contingent on time. The Divine nature is very different from the nature of creation. Yet, the divine nature fills all of creation, and these 2 natures are both distinct and complete, united with neither confusion nor division in the divine hypostasis of The Son.But to be a little more concise and clear, I am saying that instead of seeing nature as proof of God's mind behind it, nature should be seen as the mind of God incarnate in creation. I say this because mind is of a created nature, and so the divine nature would have to proceed it.
The divine nature is a mindful nature.
Again, God is not devoid of mindfulness or else He would not be able to communicate with us, nor could we know Him. Personal nature is a mindful nature.
The divine nature would be omniscinece (knowing all things) among other things. Knowing is a mindfull process.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
So, I want you to tell me, from a universe that has no intention behind it (i.e., not created by an omniscient Mind), why uniformity of nature should continue to happen as it has done in the past and present into the future?Ignoring the framing of your question—I don’t know.
A further point - you "don't know" and have no sufficient or necessary meanings of knowing. The Christian position does.
I’m pretty sure the scientific consensus is “I don’t know” as well.
So, your worldview is insufficient in knowing. You can only hope that some human comes along that understands the full aspects of every principle and detail of origins. Good luck there!
God is the necessary being for us to know. I hope you think of that!
For example why does time only travel in one direction? I’m pretty sure science doesn’t know.Hey, but they’re working on it.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
So, I want you to tell me, from a universe that has no intention behind it (i.e., not created by an omniscient Mind), why uniformity of nature should continue to happen as it has done in the past and present into the future?Ignoring the framing of your question—I don’t know. I’m pretty sure the scientific consensus is “I don’t know” as well. For example why does time only travel in one direction? I’m pretty sure science doesn’t know.Hey, but they’re working on it.
I'm just throwing out thoughts here.
Only one life on earth, and it will soon be over. Do you think science will know the answer before you die or will your death end in another purposeless existence in the grand scheme of things, and how do you KNOW? Notice, I asked you the how not the why.
Do you think it is a reasonable idea or concept to think that some happenstance without meaning, purpose, or intent would continue to function indefinitely in a conforming nature without a Mind and intent to do so? There would be no reason or reasoning involved. Things would just happen willy nilly.
Do you believe that it is reasonable to think that a lawgiver proceeds laws in your experience of laws? We discover "natural laws" and are able to put them into equations to make sense of them. Furthermore, mathematics and laws are conceptual. They mean nothing without minds to perceive them, yet our minds don't create them but discover them. The principle of "twoness" does not depend on you nor I believing it, yet without believing twoness mathematics would not be possible. So, it seems that some Mind preceded ours.
In a universe that is not mindful, or mind-created, there is no reason for consistency or sustainability, or so many mathematically precise laws and principles. Why do we discover them? Does it not bother you? So why do we continually make sense of such a universe?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
[1] The OT and NT are the plumblines, yet it also concerns trust, relationship, and interaction with God. Any position regarding presuppositional starting points or the basis of a worldview (or system of thought) requires faith. As I said before, is that blind faith, reasonable faith, or an unreasonable faith?[2] That is a debate within Christian thinking. One thing, Romans 10:17 and other passages seem to convey that faith comes through hearing the message. On the other hand, who has ear's to hear the message, eyes to see, and a heart to understand. Why do we not all believe? It is obvious that many of us do not want to believe. We want to invent our own explanations.The inhouse debate questions whether God saves and therefore it depends on Him alone (monergism/Calvinism) or do you save yourself through your acts of "righteousness" in conjunction with God's revelation (synergism/Arminianism)?Did Jesus die to save specific people or just make salvation possible?Whatever you believe, if you have wronged God you are answerable to Him and who hasn't if they are past the age of accountability. That would exclude innocent little children?If God’s real and he’s omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, what’s the point of it all If everything is part of his “plan”?Yes, its origins. As such, how do you get uniformity of nature (sustainability - things continuing in the same manner as in the past) so that the sciences - i.e., physics, chemistry - are possible (for science we must have the ability to predict based on the consistency and repeatability of nature)?You’re probably referring to a unified field theory. Science is working on it. In the past 2000 years God has been pushed further and further back into the shadows of the unknown. Our universe has expanded as our knowledge has grown. Now he resides outside it.
Science is always "working on it," with the hope that one day they will get to the truth instead of just a theory of it. The pushing back of God came largely with the Age of Reason and Darwinian evolution when humanity became the measure of all things (which humans and why are they right? -heaven help us).
There are two common explanations of the universe.
1. Either everything exists inside the box - the box representing the universe. (materialism, naturalism, the universe, or evidence from inside the box)
2. Something exists outside the box. (God)
Where does the evidence lead?
Again, you personify physics. Physics, as such, does not have the ability to pick bones with me. Physicists may have a bone to pick, but physics is a label applied to describe the properties of matter and energy.Figure of speech.
I know but I wanted to point out that to describe and explain you fall back on personal attributes. You need to bring it to a personal level to make it understandable. I believe that is for a reason because God created, thus everything reflects His Being. Although it is one explanation I believe it is reasonable.
There are many observations that give us reason to believe the universe had a beginning, such as its expansion, the running out of usable energy, etc. The question is how will you ever know with certainty unless God has revealed. Thus, I believe He is necessary for making sense of how we began (our origins) and how things happened. And, to my mind, there is no sense of the "why" without God. Why would the universe begin? No reason. Why does it exist? No reason. Why does it hold together? No reason. Why do laws exist? No reason. Things just are. But we continually find reasons and meanings for things. That suggests to me a purpose and meaning BEHIND the universe. It suggests intelligence and purpose behind it. And the Bible gives us some of the reasons, and they make sense.About how you believe the universe had a beginning- maybe for the four dimensional universe you know, with space and time. In quantum mechanics space-time doesn’t apply. Yet some leading theories say the “Big Bang” (spacetime) was created by quantum mechanics. Hence the unified field theory I was referring to before.
Four-dimensional is experiential. We have a beginning. We see and experience things around us every day having a beginning from something else. I believe we use reason with the experiential in making sense of things. But we start somewhere.
Much about quantum mechanics is theoretical. Do we actually experience it?
We can theorize about infinity, we can explain it mathematically, we can call it possible, yet can we ever live it from a beginning? Can we ever experience it ourselves if we have had a beginning? We can experience from here on into eternity (providing Christian's live forevermore spiritually) if we experience something from a different realm, the eternal realm of God.
You don’t need why, you just need how.
A world, universe without purpose, and ultimately a life with the same.
"Why" provides the purpose. Every worldview looks for whys (Why did this happen? Then the when and how questions. It happened because X took place...) and a natural or material worldview has no explanation for whys of origins because whys require intent and purpose. There is simply no reason for why from such a naturalistic perspective regarding origins. It can go so far in answering the why question, then no further. So, there is an inconsistency with such worldviews. It can't make sense of its core foundational starting point.
Questions present whys. Can you get to how without why? I think you have to ask the why question.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Because any time you have a contradiction regarding the same issue then one position (logically), at least, cannot be true.In the law of identity, a dog is a dog (A=A; Dog = Dog). "Dog" does not mean cat. When someone says, "a god said A happened" and another person said a different god said B happened regarding the same thing there is something terribly wrong in the thinking of at least one of those positions.From what I’ve read the law of identity isn’t independent in any system of logic.
Then I suggest you read further.
There are three or four principles or fundamentals of logic (logical laws) that if violated cause a breakdown of making sense of anything.
The law of contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle.
Or as J.P. Moreland says:
"The law of identity says that if a statement such as “It is raining” is true, then the statement is true. More generally, it says that the statement P is the same thing as itself and its different from everything else. Applied to all realty, the law of identity says that everything is itself and not something else.
The law of noncontradiction says that a statement such as “It is raining” cannot be both true and false in the same sense. Of course it could be raining in Missouri and not raining in Arizona, but the principle says that it cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the same place.
The law of the excluded middle says that a statement such as “It is raining” is either true or false. There is no other alternative...
The law of the excluded middle says that a statement such as “It is raining” is either true or false. There is no other alternative...
The basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and are known to be true for at least two reasons: (1) They are intuitively obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic (see below), one can see that it is true. (2) Those who deny them use these principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable and that it is self-refuting to deny them."
Thus, these laws are self-evident and thus, self-refuting if you deny them.
Are you denying the law of identity?
All you need is one god to be wrong in logic, memory and emotion. God has been depicted as pretty emotional in the bible.
So what?
I do not believe the Christian God is wrong, in either of those three qualities. Can I justify my belief? I believe so to a reasonable extent. The question is whether people want "reasonable?" I believe there is various proof that God has given us, and when we use our intellect there is only one way or conscious system of thought that can make sense of life's ultimate questions.
Have you heard the problems in genesis? Or wouldn’t you consider that canon to God?
Some problems, but are they irreconcilable? I do not believe so. There are sufficient explanations that many have stated in response to these atheists-are-us sites that compile them.
I consider the full 66 writings that make up the to testaments as canon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There is no sensible way to believe the mainstream storyline of Adam being the biological father of Cain. I believe that the idea is that Cain was made from God's alter ego Satan (I don't believe that Lucifer is Satan or that he ever becomes it, I believe that Lucifer is Jesus in the NT and that God of the OT is, or directly controls, Satan throughout). The Serpent was to produce the most evil, masculine being in the entire storyline; Cain, who would reflect everything sinister and brutal in humanity, whereas Abel would represent a more feminist type of guy, who respectd women and people in general holding an honest reputation about himself.There is absolutely no explanation of what the 'swallowing of the apple' is metaphor for, are you literally telling me that an apple was that tempting? I think the apple was having sex with the serpent of the sexy badboy Satan.
Your post is full of eisegesis. In other words, you supply your own interpretation that is CONTRARY to the text of Scripture.
The text nowhere says that Cain was made from Satan, nowhere says that Lucifer is Jesus, nowhere says that Abel would represent a "more feminist type of guy" or nowhere says that the fruit was an apple, or finally, that this fictitious apple was symbolic of having sex with the serpent or Satan. Your whole post is totally preposterous, IMO.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
So, I want you to tell me, from a universe that has no intention behind it (i.e., not created by an omniscient Mind), why uniformity of nature should continue to happen as it has done in the past and present into the future?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
There are two reasonable starting points, IMO.1. God/gods did it. Gods make little sense. God does.2. The universe is a product of blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. No sense to be found in such a position since there is no purpose, intelligence, or intent to it. Things just happen.From these two positions come the myriad of opinions and views that share one or the other starting point.There is a third position lots of people push for, but again, it is not reasonableWhy do you think gods make little sense compared to just one god?
Because any time you have a contradiction regarding the same issue then one position (logically), at least, cannot be true.
In the law of identity, a dog is a dog (A=A; Dog = Dog). "Dog" does not mean cat. When someone says, "a god said A happened" and another person said a different god said B happened regarding the same thing there is something terribly wrong in the thinking of at least one of those positions.
[1] Is it just the book(s) you go by and what you’ve been taught? [2] What if you were born into a different religion? Would you still be a christian? Also keep in mind there are far older religions which many had multiple gods.
[1] The OT and NT are the plumblines, yet it also concerns trust, relationship, and interaction with God. Any position regarding presuppositional starting points or the basis of a worldview (or system of thought) requires faith. As I said before, is that blind faith, reasonable faith, or an unreasonable faith?
[2] That is a debate within Christian thinking. One thing, Romans 10:17 and other passages seem to convey that faith comes through hearing the message. On the other hand, who has ear's to hear the message, eyes to see, and a heart to understand. Why do we not all believe? It is obvious that many of us do not want to believe. We want to invent our own explanations.
The inhouse debate questions whether God saves and therefore it depends on Him alone (monergism/Calvinism) or do you save yourself through your acts of "righteousness" in conjunction with God's revelation (synergism/Arminianism)?
Did Jesus die to save specific people or just make salvation possible?
Whatever you believe, if you have wronged God you are answerable to Him and who hasn't if they are past the age of accountability. That would exclude innocent little children?
By ”The universe is a product of blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance,” do you mean the origins of it, or do you mean the nature of the observable universe as we see it? If it’s the origins of it (if there is one), we don’t know what happened. If it’s the universe we observe, well physics has a bone to pick with you.
Yes, its origins. As such, how do you get uniformity of nature (sustainability - things continuing in the same manner as in the past) so that the sciences - i.e., physics, chemistry - are possible (for science we must have the ability to predict based on the consistency and repeatability of nature)?
Again, you personify physics. Physics, as such, does not have the ability to pick bones with me. Physicists may have a bone to pick, but physics is a label applied to describe the properties of matter and energy.
Actually there are many positions in science which tackle different hypothesise/theories. Many of them are reasonable. The Big Bang isn’t the be all end all. What happened before the inflation of the Big Bang? We don’t know.
There are many observations that give us reason to believe the universe had a beginning, such as its expansion, the running out of usable energy, etc. The question is how will you ever know with certainty unless God has revealed. Thus, I believe He is necessary for making sense of how we began (our origins) and how things happened. And, to my mind, there is no sense of the "why" without God. Why would the universe begin? No reason. Why does it exist? No reason. Why does it hold together? No reason. Why do laws exist? No reason. Things just are. But we continually find reasons and meanings for things. That suggests to me a purpose and meaning BEHIND the universe. It suggests intelligence and purpose behind it. And the Bible gives us some of the reasons, and they make sense.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
1) If God or Gods did it, then what did Gods.
Logically, there can only be one since they all contradict each other. One god reveals the universe coming into existence one way, another a different way. One god reveals salvation one way, another a different. Logical contradictions are telling in that at least one position is not true.
2) You say happenstance I say coincidence and one could say exactly the same thing about Gods.
Synonyms for happenstance (chance)
***
MORE RELATED WORDS FOR COINCIDENCE
- accident
- advantage
- adventure
- bad luck
- break
- cast
- casualty
- coincidence
- contingency
- destination
- destiny
- doom
- even chance
- fluke
- fortuity
- fortune
- future
- gamble
- good luck
- hap
- haphazard
- happening
- hazard
- heads or tails
- hit
- in the cards
- kismet
- lot
- lottery
- luck out
- lucky break
- misfortune
- occurrence
- odds
- outcome
- peradventure
- peril
- providence
- risk
- stroke of luck
- throw of the dice
- toss-up
- turn of the cards
- way the cookie crumbles
- wheel of fortune
Oh! Coincidentally there was a Big Bang.
How so?
Oh! Coincidentally there was a God.
With the biblical God, there would be the intention.
In fact neither starting point is particularly reasonable, as both are reliant on something somehow appearing out of nothing. Which is completely unreasonable.
With God, there is a reason. Reason comes from reasoning being. Without God, there is no intelligence. Intelligence requires consciousness.
Second, the physical universe is created by someone with God but comes into existence out of nothing without God or eternally exists. If the universe had a beginning it would not be timeless.
How does something come from nothing?
And so what is the third option? Please tell.
A worldview in which the universe is an illusion.
You live inconsistently in that worldview if that worldview is the case by the way you live and act. For instance, why do you look both ways when you cross the street or apply laws of logic when you come to an intersection if you are living an illusion?
Also, how do you know anything? Everything would be an illusion. Yet you do know things, don't you?
Inconsistency is a good indication something is wrong with your thinking since it is a sign of irrationality and a questionability of what is fact. You say one thing yet act in a totally different manner (like living an illusion within an illusion). It is self-refuting to believe two opposing things regarding the same thing at the same time. For instance, if I said, "There was no such thing as truth," it would nullify that statement too. (i.e., If there is no such thing as truth then that statement is not true either)
Not only that, truth is necessary to know something.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Rational is as rational does.And judgement is arrogance.
Are you making a judgment call? (Hmmm)
And there are upwards of 7.7 billion different world views. Most of which can be considered to be rational in their own individual context. In fact all are probably seemingly rational from an individual perspective.
There are two reasonable starting points, IMO.
1. God/gods did it. Gods make little sense. God does.
2. The universe is a product of blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. No sense to be found in such a position since there is no purpose, intelligence, or intent to it. Things just happen.
From these two positions come the myriad of opinions and views that share one or the other starting point.
There is a third position lots of people push for, but again, it is not reasonable
Created:
-->
@Reece101
So, do you want me to give evidence against or argue your questions and points as to their truth value or not?How about you can pick one low hanging fruit and we’ll try to stick with it.
Prophecy as reasonable evidence.
Let me start with three questions for you.
1. Is it reasonable to believe the OT was written before the NT? What does historic evidence reveal?
2. Is it reasonable to believe the NT was written before AD 70?
3. Was the city of Jerusalem and the temple destroyed in AD 70?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
You misunderstand my point. Regardless of how long we have been on the planet, if there is no Mind behind the universe you are living inconsistently with what is behind your worldview - mindless chance happenstance, thus no meaning or purpose. Not only are you looking for meaning and finding it in a meaningless, random, chance happenstance universe, but you are making up mean ----- for what? Before you were born the universe devoid of God had no meaning and after you die it will still have none. What is the point of meaning when ultimately it is all meaningless?You borrow from the Christian worldview that has meaning and that believes there is meaning in the universe because God has created us humans for a purpose. Not only that, our Christian worldview is consistent with what we believe. Yours, devoid of God is not. Furthermore, when you break it down to its very roots, to its presuppositional foundations that everything else rests upon, it can't make sense of itself logically because the inconsistency is at the heart of the belief.Does there have to be a “Mind” behind the universe? Why can’t there just be minds in the universe?It seems to me that you don’t understand my worldview. Why do you think I’m living inconsistently with it?Mindless chance happenstance universe, no meaning or purpose? Again, minds in the universe.What are you asking by ‘you are making up mean —— for what?’. One definition of mean is to i͟n͟t͟e͟n͟d͟ (something) to occur or be the case.Animals have values that they mean (intend) to attain. Just like in sports you mean (intend) to win.Ultimately we aren’t ultimate beings. We find meaning in the little that we know and to discover the unknown. Well for me anyway.You say I borrow from the Christian worldview. There are far older religions, thoughts and ideas that Christianity has “borrowed” from.Christianity isn’t some sort of supreme archetype. keep that in mind. While Europe had Christianity Asia was doing fine.You say ‘our Christian worldview’ like you speak for all ChristiansThere’s that word again, “consistent”.Look, I’ll just tell you what the roots of my worldview are. It’s called naturalism. I don’t think it’s your forte.I can respond to everything you say like this, but I really can’t be bothered. The posts are just going to grow. It’s turning into a game of who has more endurance. Can we try to stay on one topic please?
So, do you want me to give evidence against or argue your questions and points as to their truth value or not?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Do me a favour though, don't say there is no evidence for Christianity (like so many do) or that it is an irrational belief unless you want to formally debate such a topic. I am quite willing to compare the rationality of the Christian worldview belief system against any other for being as rational. I was touching on a few of those areas.
Put it another way - does your worldview make sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Which makes it difficult for anyone to understand who did not write the sentence and has not read the other posts. Agreed?FROM HARIKRISH:i left out the quote in your last comment. But long replies clutters the format.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On God's being and omnipresence -Exodus 3:14 (NASB)God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24).I've read all of those scripture references and they only support the assertion that god is everywhere-that-humans-are. It never says that god is also on Mars or the Andromeda galaxy for example. It only implies that humans (more specifically the author of that passage) cannot escape god.
If, as the Bible reveals, God made the physical universe and He transcends it (it is not Him but He is separate from it) then His presence would fill the whole universe. There would be nowhere I could go away from His Spirit including Mars. Since the first passage of the Bible reveals He created everything His presence would be everywhere in His creation.
The passage would depend on the purpose that God wanted the primary audience of the address to know, and us after that. That would be us humans, yes.
The specific claim, "transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now" does not appear in any of those references.
I gave you many others. The revelation does not stand on only one verse or passage. It just gives you a further glimpse of who He is.
AND, what makes your god a "he"?
God is not like humans in a physical sense, although they are created in His image and likeness.
Calling God "He/Him" is how He has revealed Himself to humanity, in the masculine pronoun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference.That is correct.
Logically! The question is, why are you or I if there is not objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
(IFF) you define god is an objective absolute universal reference point (THEN) this particular version of god must be incomprehensible (independent of the mind).
It depends on how you define "objective" as the two bolden texts reveal. "Objective" requires a mind to perceive what it means.
adjective
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:an objective opinion.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
Since the biblical God is shown to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and immutable He would not exhibit interpretation or prejudice. What He says would be based on fact, unbiased. Facts are true to what is. Both your and my thinking is influenced by all kinds of things.
Furthermore, to interpret something correctly we would then have to either think God's thoughts after Him via reason or have Him reveal the truth of a matter to know as certain.
Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real. [LINK]I mean, unless you personally prefer some alternative definition of "objective".
See above.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
“Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter”Did “The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus.” actually mention him by name?
They spoke of Jesus, indirectly, but did not mention His name.
Again, He has given you everything needed. Jesus said, "It is finished." The work of making us right with God was accomplished by Jesus and His promised Second Coming (I believe the Bible teaches AD 70 is complete) is fulfilled. That means the judgments spoken of that concern OT Israel have been fulfilled also. It also means the Old Covenant is no longer active. We now live under a "new covenant." That is the one Jesus made for all those who would believe in Him. Thus, any voice that does not confirm and conform to His word is sketchy, IMO.Which word? We’re all human.
What we call the Bible, the two testaments. It reveals thousands of times that God spoke, God, said, in some manner or other.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
There are many sections of Isaiah that are prophetic. The OT contains types or shadows. Do you understand what I mean by that? The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus. Isaiah 53 speaks of His crucifixion and resurrection plus many other things. Passages that speak of the "last days" usually speak of the NT times. If you do not know or ignore the history of the times the passages can get confusing as to their fulfillment.If they’re “types” or “shadows”, that’s all they are, going by what you’ve said...
Let me describe what a biblical type and antitype is. A type is a physical happening described in the OT, like Moses bringing the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into the Promised Land. It is a recounting of a historical event or events that took place in the OT regarding physical people who are said to have a covenant relationship with this God.
The antitype is the spiritual lesson and greater meaning that God put in place by that physical, historical event or action.
So, in the OT we have God telling Moses to tell the Israelites to put blood on the door frame and headpiece of their households so that the Angel of Death would pass over that household without killing the firstborn (Passover, a lasting remembrance for OT Israel). The sacrificial animal is a lamb and the way it is prepared is significant also. The journey from Egypt to the Promised Land crosses the Red Sea. God is taking His people out of bondage and hard labour that they experienced in Egpyt under cruel rulers. He guides them by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. He destroys the physical armies of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. He provides them with manna from heaven to sustain them. At Mount Sinai Moses receives the Ten Commandments and the covenant that God makes with Israel (that they agree to do). When they later complain because God tells them to go into the land and conquer it, yet they are afraid, God eventually decides that generation will not enter the Promised Land for doubting and disobeying Him. Neither does Moses for striking the rock in the wilderness. For forty years, they wandered about in the wilderness until that generation perished for not believing God.
Here is the antitype (the spiritual reality and greater truth) briefly explained.
Jesus is the second Moses, the prophet, priest, and spiritual leader who takes His people, out of a land of bondage and sin, on a journey not only to the Promised Land (the heavenly realm and country) but into it. He does this by His blood. He is the Passover Lamb that God provides. His blood is shed by driving nails into His hands on each side of the crossbeam and above His head by the crown of thorns on His head. This journey, like the first Exodus, lasts forty years, one generation. Our crossing the Red Sea is like a spiritual rebirth for believing God and the means He has given us - His Son. Not only this, but the Christian on their journey has spiritual food also, not physical manna but the Lord Jesus Christ, the manna of God, not just the symbol or physical item. At Mount Calvary, at the cross, God, in Jesus, confirms the New Covenant. Jesus' sacrifice has merit that animal sacrifices never had. They had to be repeated every year for the sins of the people by the sacrifice of an animal by the High Priest. Jesus' sacrifice is a once for all time sacrifice. It is that superior, even as His priesthood is superior. Not only this, all the implements and even the tabernacle or outer tent (temple) that God instructed Moses to build were after the pattern of the greater truth, a spiritual truth. After Jesus is killed there is a period of grace of forty years, a transition between the two covenants while God once again brings judgment on the disobedient with the abolition of the Old Covenant in AD 70.
If you click on each link it will demonstrate what I am saying. This type/antitype can be demonstrated throughout the full physical history of the OT as pointing to Jesus.
So what you don't see behind the scenes, those trained in the Scriptures see in God's revelation of Himself. I could give you perhaps hundreds of examples that I am aware of.
Not only this, what is solely applied to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. That is yet another evidence. What you see as blind faith is an evidential faith. I could also spend days on the evidence of prophecy and why they are reasonable and logical to believe in.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
3The Bible teaches that God has chosen to speak to us through a people and from them via a written revelation. Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter. Thus, He provides the meaning just like if I am to get what you are saying I have to understand what you said and not read something into your words that they do not convey.Lots of people have voices in their heads that they think is God speaking to them (like David Koresh), but these voices do not comply with the written revelation. Thus, we have a blueprint and a discernment within what He says.But people who supposedly spoke with God (probably with God’s voice in their head) that wrote controversial “revelations“, you believe?
No, according to the Bible, God has left us a record that has been inspired by His Spirit.
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
What they heard they recorded into writing with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So, we have a written revelation that can be confirmed many times by history as well as other verifications which I will explain a little further under your inquiry into the biblical typology. Prophecy is recorded by one of these revelations from God to a prophet and some time in the future the prophecy is fulfilled in its details.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Thus, just hearing a voice does not necessarily mean that voice is God. It could be psychosomatic or self-induced. God confirms His written word to us in history. What we have is REASONABLE to believe.
Created: