Total posts: 2,082
-->
@EtrnlVw
Question everything actually, but at some point you have to stop being a skeptic so you can allow for new knowledge, new ways of learning.
Would this new knowledge be...SPECIAL knowledge? Sorta sounds like it. Please describe the 'new' way of learning and why it's so different from the traditional way, maybe?
Two things, there's not really anything figurative about it. BUT, it could be, it just doesn't seem to have any real meaning behind it if it is. It's just not presented in a figurative way.
Neither is Noah's Ark nor the creation myth, they're presented as literal, too. As is the bear killing the kids, as is Jephtha, as is Exodus, as is Sampson...it's only the central myth, which contains a guy rising from the dead after three days (again it doesn't explain the mechanics of why this somehow absolves all sins for all people or why it was necessary, and it contains details that are strikingly similar to other messianic myths from contemporaneous cultures, all of which you disregard as false, I presume). How do we decide? Is the burning bush literal? Or that time that guy wrestled god and won? The time that guy's two daughters, Lot I think, banged him because they decided they had to? The lady with the pillar of salt (also Lot Ibelieve)?
Miracles can occur (even though rare) because of how creation is set up from the Godhead down to the physical world. Th
when was the last one?
You won't be damned because you weren't able to accept a few miracles.
Depends on what brand of Christianity you subscribe to. Or more accurately, which one your parents were into.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So then because they are legitimate areas of study, then animal psychologists being around would lead to the very logical conclusion that animals, all of them, also have souls, right? I thought the breath of god was the soul, now it's life?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If it's mixed with dust, then we should be able to see it somewhere, but anyway, does that mean all life forms on the planet have souls? Or are we the only ones made of dust?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore isn't the whole biblical mythology (hypothesis) including god, just a figurative representation of the unknown.The unknown being a creative and subsequent process (material evolution) of development.After all, the biblical stories including God were all derived from the imaginations of people.
I'll answer this one, guys, don't worry. SOME parts of the bible are figurative, coincidentally these are the parts that through our studies we know are physically impossible (Noah's Ark, Genesis where people come from dirt), SOME parts are maybe literal and maybe embellished (Exodus), but the important parts, namely the one story in the book about God's son rising from the dead, that is TOTALLY LITERAL. Don't question it, it just is, I mean if it was figurative, it wouldn't be so mysterious. I mean what else could God have done? Forgive sins without that whole passion play? Then what holiday would Christians celebrate in springtime?!? It's not like that was within his powers!
/jest.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
The soul has been demonstrated since spirituality rose.
How and where? At what point in the developmental process is the soul installed? If it's been demonstrated, we should be able to see some evidence in the human development process, right? Do all mammals or all animals or all sentient creatures have souls, or is it just humans? If the answer is just humans, then we are off to a good start! We should be able to see, biologically, the difference somewhere between an animal who is "soul negative" and a human, who is "soul positive," if this thing's been demonstrated. Do you have any such evidence? Or is your evidence like PGA's evidence, basically, "art makes you cry, therefore you have a soul"? You're talking about claims. Not demonstration of those claims. Feel free to show me otherwise. Then we can talk about why this would in any way imply an afterlife. Of course, I'm with the guy who said you should start a topic about it, this is a totally different topic I'd enjoy reading and potentially participating in. You can even copy and paste my questions if you like.
It's not special knowledge though, you are from God Itself and have access to anything anyone else does
Which god exactly? And how can I tell? And why are so many people wrong? Why are you right? I'm pretty sure it's special knowledge.
It is part of your journey to learn and experience everything the Creator has to offer.
What does this creator have to offer that I don't currently have?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Are you tiring? Is your outrage soothed? Now you're counting my posts. Lol.
Who's outraged? All I said was start a thread, suddenly you're all upset. And your post count is next to your username, I'm not sure if you're aware, I point it out because you wondered if I have a life (outside of this forum I presume? I don't know, you're in one of your fits), which I point out is ironic because you're doing three times as much as what I'm doing. Hopefully that helps clear up some of the confusion in which you seem to perpetually reside. That said, I'm done giving you rope to continually trip over in this topic, I kind of feel bad, like I'm punching a mentally handicapped child. Have fun ranting, buddy! If you ever decide you can make a case from "something caused the universe" to "Jesus did it," I remain interested in reading it, but we both know you can't and won't. For good measure, I'll throw in some random name that you seem to think scores some strange points with someone: have a great day, Jethro!
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Never change, playa. All that projection and aggravation, not a whiff of anything intelligent, engaging in 2800 posts I bet. Keep on keepin' on, at least this makes you feel good, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying at all. And I don't think I'm the one to blame. If I perceive a Blurg, does that make it real?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Do you have a life? Please go find it.
You have 3X as many posts here as I do as of this moment. That's approximate, by the way, before you get all backed up over it. As usual, your total lack of self awareness serves as the petard on which you're hoisted.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I wanted to debate you right now and right here. You wanted another thread that you said you may or may not take part in. So I declined. Now I'm the one who never debates?
I actually even said "or don't" to starting a new thread, yet you still haven't even attempted to make your argument. It's as you said, rather telling. You're all blather. I'm sure you'll slink back over to your little three poster fiefdom soon enough, where you can debate who's black and whose country sucks, it seems a real passion of yours. You are doing what I want you to...staying here so I can continue to toss you for lolz. That's another one of your classics, I love it! Adults on a debate site talking like a 12 year old who's in an online game, cool!
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ask the people that actually wrote the damn story
If only this were possible, it'd help clear up a lot! The problem with introducing the possiblity that it was a metaphor means that all other supernatural claims in the bible, including the resurrection of Jesus, the central myth of Christianity, is ALSO a metaphor (his spirit lives on in us, therefore it's kind of like he's back from the dead, right?). There's no clear way in the bible to delineate that two.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I gave my reason. You invited me to blog. I don't blog. I'm here for debate.
<br>
I invited you to start a thread to present your argument. You're not here for debate, you're here to complain and run your usual "I'm a tough guy" act no one buys, to make ill conceived arguments, to act like a child, but you're certainly not here for debate. You've yet to demonstrate any real interest in intellectual discussion at all, you sort of want to do this weird puff your chest out bluster to impress yourself. It's bizarre, but I have to admit I feel bad not helping you. It's like watching a turtle that someone's flipped onto its back trying to get up, I mean you feel like you SHOULD help it before the sun dries it out...but then you find out the turtle's just an asshole turtle anyway so you don't.
To clarify:
Our topic was to draw a line from the cause of the universe (which you said you agreed with) to the Christian God.
I agree that it seems likely through ONLY logic that something 'caused' the universe (logic alone doesn't prove this is true in this case, but for the sake of a hypothetical I can grant it). You seem to claim you can draw a line to the Christian god, but I think you thought better of it, having been handed your hat on this very topic numerous times, so now you're saying "I don't even WANNA play in your stupid sandbox!"
You had not yet heard my argument and called it unconvincing. I told you the many people it has convinced contradict you, and suddenly you have elevated that comment as my argument. The same argument you wouldn't let me make!
Pretty sure my contention said something like "If that IS your argument", advising you to avoid making that terrible argument (Which you do again in this very post, it's again, super weird) if you wanted to make a thread about the topic. See:
You had not yet heard my argument and called it unconvincing. I told you the many people it has convinced contradict you, and suddenly you have elevated that comment as my argument. The same argument you wouldn't let me make!
I said the argumentum ad populum you were employing was not an intellectually interesting argument (it isn't). And again, I'm not prohibiting you from making your terrible argument (only saying the one you've presented here thus far is terrible and wouldn't make for a good topic). You can start a topic, can't you, gentle reader? Can the class say "Ethang5 doesn't actually have an argument and just wants to toss his toys out of the pram in a tantrum?"
I thought it could. Gentle readers, you don't answer my questions so I won't answer yours, etc. etc., playing all the hits! Your act is old bro. You want to debate, then debate. You don't, ever. There's an entire other debate board with pages and pages of you not debating, and topics just about a single poster. You don't have the capacity for intellectual engagement, partner, otherwise you'd have shown some by now. You don't have to do what I want at all, just be you dude, we can all see you for what you are. I am glad to keep pointing it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It isn't that magic isn't real, it is very real, and even very prevalent in society. It's that, like illusion, it is defined by its unreality.
I can understand why people have trouble figuring out what you're talking about. You're saying here that not only is magic REAL, it's prevalent in society (can you explain how? where can I see actual magic that is real and is not stagecraft?), but that it's 'defined by unreality.' How is something real defined by how unreal it is, exactly? Are you making the Athias-esque argument that magic is real because we have conceived of the idea of magic, or are you saying actual magic is real and distinct from clever stagecraft?
Did the egyptian guys use REAL magic, or unreal magic (stagecraft)? I don't understand what you're saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Maybe I can help clarify your position. Do you mean to say that the bible's use of the word magic is basically the modern understanding of "magic," which is essentially "clever stagecraft"? Can you explain how, if this is your position, you arrived at this conclusion? Is it "there's no such thing as magic?"
Created:
-->
@ethang5
No thanks. I don't do pop religion.
So in fact you WOULD rather complain. To review: you suggest a topic ("Let us make our case for God! JUST THIS ONCE!") that differs from this topic. I suggest "Go ahead and make the topic", and say I'll be glad to at least read it. You say "nah," for whatever reason (I think it's because you like to play the victim), subsequently reveal a terrible argument for god ("A lot of people believed in him over a lot of time, therefore it's likely true"), I find a pre-existing topic that is EXACTLY THE TOPIC YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, and coincidentally is pursuant to the user guidelines for this site, and you say "I don't do pop religion," apropos of nothing at all.
Oh, not to mention you say "That's not my argument" then refuse to clarify in EITHER topic. I hope Jesus isn't too disappointed that you're blatantly saying "Nah, I don't do that" to 1 Peter 3:15!
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well as I don't make the assumption that anything that hasn't been demonstrated is real, I don't assume a soul to begin with. I'm not on the same plane of existence or realm or whatever as you I guess with all that special knowledge.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Because he's dead if he was ever real in the first place and there's nothing more you can do to him.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Well what do you know, there's already a topic where several have made cases for their version of god, you could simply head over there if you were so inclined! And bonus for you, I've even participated in it.
Created:
Double post deleted, apologies.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
It's cool to think that you've devoted more thread initializations to Harikrish and your petty squabble with him than you have to your case for Jesus. In fairness to you, if your entire case is "lots of people believe it therefore it's probably true," you're better off not starting the thread, I agree, because that is completely uninteresting, I mean unless you can tell me why you're right and muslims, who outnumber Christians, are wrong.
Or alternative plan, go facebook stalk some internet forum poster and make topics about how much the two of you don't like each other, that seems a strength. Just kiss already!
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Okay, no problem. Forgive me for being 99% sure you don't have any argument or case at all, just going by the dearth of evidence to support another assessment. Just going by the amount of evidence you've provided, I mean. Ironically, we've gotten to the end of your case for gods pretty quickly, and you didn't have to do anything BUT complain (you saying it's there providing no evidence and demanding we all believe you AND find you interesting to boot). We're both happy!
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Seems like what you really want is the ability to complain about not being able to lay out your case, rather than to lay it out to anyone at all. You could have done so here without asking my permission or waiting for someone to ask you. You'd rather complain apparently.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You asked and I told you, you guys never give us the chance. Don't ask a question and then call the answer a grievance.
I don't recall asking a question, but you sure seem worked up about it.
No thanks. You're here arguing, that shows you already find it interesting. That you cannot commit to another thread (which you recommended) with the topic in which you've already shown an interest, is telling.
Perhaos: it should tell you I'd be interested in seeing what your case is before responding to it, in a place clearly marked for said case, rather than down here in the depths of some other topic entirely. And that you won't start a thread that's a completely different topic than this one, ten pages in, is also pretty telling: you seem wary of starting a thread about your case for the supernatural, I mean it's almost as if you don't have a whole lot to talk about on the matter. "Commit" to an internet forum thread? Dafuq does that even mean. If your topic interests me, I'll respond as I see fit, otherwise, go fuck yourself, maybe?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
It depends on your "case" or "argument." As with Athias, I am not going to waste time spamming someone's thread if what they're saying doesn't interest me intellectually. So my suggestion, as you're apparently aggrieved you don't get a chance to lay it out, is lay it out and I'll be glad to look at it and respond if so inclined. Or, don't bother, but don't say you never get the chance to do so, I mean it's an internet forum where anyone can post any topic they like. Saying you're somehow prohibited from doing so seems silly, just make the topic if it's interesting.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I guess you can do it wherever you want, feel free. I just thought not burying it on a ninth page someplace might help others notice it.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Based on the part about math and numbers alone, you and I are never going to come to an agreement on who's right, and I don't think I have the energy for an argument over the purely theoretical existence of all gods, which is really the crux of the matter as I see it. If you believe all gods, including those that contradict each other, exist because someone once thought of them, then there's really nothing more for me to say. I'm sure you'll find other more worthy opponents more well versed in philosophical whatevers, but the argument as you lay it out is not the sort of thing that is going to inspire people to praise the lord or legislate over, or threaten each other with eternal retribution, you know? It doesn't touch on anything I'm really intrigued by.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If something caused the universe, can we agree on some logical restrictions about this something?
Feel free to start a topic and argue for the restrictions I guess. It's a long road from "something" to "personal entity," so good luck, I look forward to reading it.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I admit it's a sophisticated phrasing and you've clearly spent time crafting it, I applaud the effort, but it's hinged on a very broad version of the verb "to exist," one that doesn't argue for "is factual and real." It seems semantic, not the sort of thing that would make one, say, fly a plane into a building for passion of belief. At best, doesn't it argue for deism? Or does it argue that all versions of all gods ever conceived existed? Is it possible using your argument If, for the sake of discussion, anyone who believed in Thor the norse god suddenly vanished, leaving no one to conceive of him, would he then cease to exist?
If indeed I made the argument that my office is now called the Yankees, that sitting behind my desk is the act of "manning," and my desk is named second base, I am capable and welcome to believe that, sure. Does that, though, compel anyone else to accept my definitions?
I still think you're arguing for the mechanics of ability or right to believe something. I think the spirit of the question is more along the lines of what causes people to have conversion experiences or go out an proselytize, which is a bit different than "has anyone ever imagined a god, if so, that god exists."
Numbers are just names we've given to amounts, as I see it. If all people ceased to exist, two asteroids plus two more asteroids would still equal our asteroids, even if no one could count them. They're essential to our expression of mathematical concepts, but math isn't contingent on numbers, oddly enough. As far as testing for the "true" meaning of a word, it would depend on the word, wouldn't it?
Created:
-->
@Stronn
I feel like it makes a distinction between "exists" and "is real" or "is true," but those are all very slippery semantics as far as I can tell. It seems akin to 'anything in possible' when in practical terms, that's just not true: for example, it's strictly speaking possible I could somehow find myself manning second base for the Yankees, but in practical terms, it is so improbable that it cannot be practically distinguished from impossible.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I know someone whose relative was diagnosed clinically with it and their brain scan indicated unusual activity associated with the condition. I don't spend a lot of time reading JAMA or anything. But my point remains: the doctor never said "Look, we think based on what we see here it might be schizophrenia, and there are medicines we use to treat and control that condition (which would infer that brain chemistry is involved as the medicines would modify that in some way). It's either that, or you're cursed by demons, in which case, there's a guy I know in this building down the street who can say some magic words, see if that works."
Created:
-->
@Athias
I mean it's a condition that corresponds with things you can diagnose with various brain scans and other medical methods. It's no longer blamed on demons or external entities.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
PGA is convinced that only God could have created the universe, and our observation of the universe says everything has a cause, he logically concludes that cause must be God.
Just pointing out that here's where things break down: God hasn't earned his place in this proposition. Pure logic would dictate "everything has a cause, therefore SOMETHING (not god or gods) caused the universe (which strictly speaking is not the same as creating the universe)". The challenge you are both overlooking is turning SOMETHING into "God Of The Bible." I can agree with you that SOMETHING caused the universe. I need to understand the path you follow from that nebulous something to your own conclusioin.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@PGA2.0
Answering "God" does explain some things.
Except neither you nor he can demonstrate that this explanation, or start of an explanation, has one thing required to be valid: existence. The rest of the arguments he makes flow from the assumption, rather than demonstration, that this entity exists at all. If we can't do that, then god is on the same playing field as the fairies and the grecoroman pantheon and mind in a vat. Both of you go through a lot of distraction tactics to avoid this question. His seems to be mainly argument from authority + argument from incredulity + et tu quotue. Also, "I think you're wrong therefore I am actually right," which isn't true either.
Look PGA, I don't have a ton of time to go through your stuff, but I appreciate your effort. You have not, however, demonstrated the existence of this character from the book is anything other than how Batman exists. I have answered all the questions honestly, but you keep asking them. If I knew what caused the big bang, I'd have a nobel prize right now. I just don't think it was a character from a book. You fervently believe this character said magic words, you think the earth is young despite the scientific evidence, you cite oral tradition as corruptible then think the bible is infallible and factual...this is probably as good a place as any to end, I can't sort through four or five posts that have repetitive questions I've already answered. I look forward to engaging you in the future in other topics.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Bible=/= evidence for it being true.
I don't think prophecy is any indication of divinity (see my sports illustrated 2014 Houston Astros prediction of a 2017 WS championship, which is far more specific, accurate and impressive than anything purportedly prophesied in the bible), there is no inherent connection between prediction and divinity. And morality existed before the bible, so that's not a good one either because you could appropriate morals of the day into a book and pretend some power gave them to a 900 year old guy on a mountain.
Please prove true that people lived to 900 years, or 600 years, that snakes and donkeys can talk, the ark story, that anyone ever rose from the dead...it's just mythology. And it's not even original.
If you can't prove the bible god empirically, can you empirically prove other gods are false?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Correlation, or better known as the Logical Common Sense Argument (LCSA).I made it up myself lol.Another objective would be the ol "God of the Gaps argument"....
Both of your arguments ignore one huge problem each. THe first is that "common sense" changes all the time, across various cultures. Using this argument argues (poorly) at best for desim, not theism. The second is that God of the Gaps is infinite regress, it doesn't explain anything, it merely finds the last point of mystery and inserts "god."
For example, schizophrenia is caused by demons, use common sense! God has accursed this person for some sin his father committed.
Study demonstrates schizophrenia to be a chemical brain disorder, not demonic possession. That seems common sense NOW. It wasn't three hundred years ago.
But maybe god is using brain chemistry to accurse this wretch! Okay, but that's (a) not what you originally said or thought and (b) why would god need to hide in that way, what would the point of doing so be if he's trying to deliver his message? "God created life!" and we discover DNA, which turns into "Yeah, and he did it using DNA! Duh, what didn't you get the first time??"
Both are extremely poor defenses.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
A man is accused of stealing from his employer. Is the accusation in any way evidence of him stealing?
"The bible is evidence that everything in the bible is true."
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible is evidence. Prophecy is evidence. Jesus Christ as a historical Person is an evidence. The unity of the Bible is evidence. Morality is evidence. Something instead of nothing and how to make sense of it is evidence. The complexity and diversity of life is a piece of evidence. Uniformity of nature is evidence. Truth and knowledge are pieces of evidence. Logic is evidence. The information we find and discover in nature is evidence. The laws of nature and mathematics are evidence. The causal tree or origins is evidence. Consciousness is evidence.
The Bible's the claim, not the evidence. Historical evidence for Jesus is GENEROUSLY considered disputable, as records of him outside of the bible are extremely scarce. Morality is not uniform, so it can't be evidence of a single mind behind it. You don't make sense of something rather than nothing, what a terrible argument (Because something is here, therefore Jesus is the reason?).
How does math = evidence for Jesus?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm not convinced these are the only two options, as the laws o f physics may have dictated it. It's never 'logical' to believe something that has no evidence to support it. Would it also be logical to believe in fairies doing it? Why not, because there's no book about them?I'm asking for what is more reasonable and logical to believe - God creating or chance happenstance in explaining our existence and the existence of the universe? What makes sense in origins?
Does no intention, no purpose, no agency, but mindless, indifferent, random chance happenstance make sense or seem like the likely explanation?
Define "make sense." To me, it means, in this context, comports with the evidence. In which case, yes, indifferent randomness makes the most sense. From the amount of empty space to stuff like famines and floods, that's what it looks like. I don't think you and I see the phrase "making sense of" anything as the same thing. You want to feel better about the randomness, so you say "God has a plan for this horrible or senseless shit" and say you've made sense of it.
How do such beings develop from mindless matter (Ma?GPa?)?
Don't know.
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.Yes, it does. It explains origins and existence. It says how, by His word, He spoke and it was so. Whether you believe the Bible or biblical evidence is another matter. It is also logical and reasonable.
So according to you, the most logical explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation, the speed of light, the rapid expansion of the universe, the MOST LOGICAL EXPLANATION is "an unseen entity not described in any book at all until the last two thousand years said magic words and the entire universe sprang into existence, then made sure the evidence didn't look like he did that at all"? To you, this is the most logical and reasonable explanation? Clearly we have different standards of reasonable.
All we ever witness, experientially, is conscious, intelligent beings deriving their existence from other such beings.
What percentage of the time in which humans have existed in their current form on earth has the microscope been employed? Wait, maybe a better question. How old do you think the earth is?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Please give the earliest documented stone tablets, manuscripts, or copies available of Mithra and what is written.
So age = likeliest path to truth?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Sigh. We're going over well trod ground but okay.
What do you mean by 'atheist?' Does that mean you don't know if it was God but until you see evidence you will reject Him and live from the atheistic position of looking at life and meaning strictly from a position devoid of God?
By atheist I mean I do not believe in god or gods. That's it.
To be consistent, do you mean that you explain everything from naturalistic materialism origination from the physical universe? Or do you just say, "Who knows, who cares," yet spend your time debating just that?
I have yet to find a proposition that nature can't make sense of. I don't say who cares, I say who knows and then "If you do, please show me how."
With morality, how do you make sense of right and wrong from a relativistic position, or do you believe in objective morals? If so, how are they determined from a subjective mindset, and which subjective mindset(s)?
The same way you do: individually. I don't need a reward or a punishment to decide right from wrong. I don't believe in objective morals because morals change over time. At one point it was moral to murder people who didn't look like you. Now it isn't. Slavery was moral at some point, now it isn't. Sorry but morality is subject to the time and society in which the group exists.
With origins, you say you don't or can't know, yet you deny God is the most reasonable answer, correct?
I deny that anything undemonstrated is the most reasonable answer, just waiting for evidence.
How do you make sense of the Big Bang?
In what way?
How do you make sense of the Big Bang? What exploded? What caused the explosion? Why?
How many times have I said I'm not an astrophysicist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That sounds more like you don't think anyone who doesn't already accept the bible as true, specifically your sect's interpretation of the bible, should bother studying it at all. It sounds like the church depends an awful lot on telling people "Well, you don't know what you're reading, but I do, so you should listen to me and accpet what I say," without a compelling reason for anyone to do so.
So I'll ask it more simply: how, without scholarship, do we know your version is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That doesn't answer the question.
How do we know, the ones who aren't members of that church, that your contextual condition is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How do we know, the ones who aren't members of that church, that your contextual condition is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Please explain the proper context and why a building would have any effect on said context.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not to Jesus. By the way, you're not 'making sense' of how anything started this way, what you're doing is called 'taking credit for' more accurately. Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.Why not Jesus? Again, a philosophical naturalistic position does not allow for intentionality.
Why not the Titans of Grecoroman myth? Or Zenu, the scientology guy? It's pretty evident to me, your Jesus explanation is not in any way explanatory.
Still completely unaddressed is how me not knowing how time started affects whether I'm a Hitler Socialist or whatever with those distractions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
"Explain" the bible in what way? Scholarship can explain a lot of things about the way a lot of books are interpreted. I think you mean "verify," though. Can you expound?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You are welcome to go through life not making sense of things because you have a worldview that can't. It does not have what is necessary.What exactly do you think my life is like without "making sense" of how the universe started?Just that, a life that cannot make sense of life's ultimate questions.
THis probably ends our discussion, as it seems clear you have no way to elucidate at all what you're talking about. I have asked several times now what "making sense of life's ultimate questions" actually means, in practical terms, and what sort of useful or actionable information does this impart, and you can't answer it outside of restating the question. What does your life, which you think makes sense of the ultimate questions (even these are extremely ill defined) have, in practical, demonstrable terms, that my life, which according to you does not? Please be specific. You know beyond doubt how the universe started ("God did it!"). Now that you know and I don't, what do you do differently than what I do, besides go to church?
That would mean it is inconsistent in the way you live experientially to the way you think overall, a universe without meaning and purpose yet you seek and live with both. You fight against God and a universe "with meaning and purpose" built into it for a universe to have meaning and purpose would mean there would be intentionality behind it, yet you deny this once you put your marbles all in one basket of denying what is necessary for intentionality.
Are you even reading what I'm typing, or are you just copy pasting a Frank Turek book here? None of this describes accurately how I see things, they're all arguments you're assigning.I do not, in any way, seek or live with meaning. The meaning and purpose in my life, I create. I decide. I don't fight against god because I don't believe in any (just as I don't worry about the all seeing eye of Sauron, it's fictional). The universe does not have a built in meaning or purpose to be discovered, we all have to decide what our lives are going to mean, every single day, because they're short and uniquely ours. I don't see intentionality demonstrated, you're assuming it, without then explaining how you think you can see it. I've asked you to specify, since you know, what the meaning and purpose of the universe is, your answer is "To praise Jesus!" That's not exactly helpful information, number one, and number two you are simply assuming Jesus is the god that did the universe. You've never demonstrated that either, you simply
"Et tu quoque" your way through it.
"Et tu quoque" your way through it.
Why would you expect such laws from an unintentional random chance universe?
I don't think the laws of physics = random chance, but I doubt that's very moving, you're just going to god of the gaps the laws of physics anyway. And these laws aren't discovered, they're described. We don't invent them, we study them. It's the hard work that comes with not stopping at "well, don't know how this happened, probably a god did it, let's quit studying medicine I guess."
Why not Jesus? Again, a philosophical naturalistic position does not allow for intentionality
Even if I grant intentionality, which is impossible to grant, I'm sorry, unless you can explain the intention behind of billions of light years worth of apparently empty space and thousands of planets we'll never ever reach, you cannot get from 'creator' to Jesus. I've asked this before. I think we're in spin the wheels mode.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
AS you know, individual experiences that cannot be duplicated or independently verified are not good evidence. I'll move on because there's just no way we're ever going to agree: I need to see things demonstrated in order to accept them as true.
And your comparison of different realms to earning guitar is facile: I know people who play guitar. I don't know anyone who has learned to travel to another realm or dimension or has been tuned to some information that they know but can't impart in any useful way to anyone else that I'm supposed to accept as real because it makes life easier or something like that. Guitars are demonstrably real. Other levels of consciousness are not, unless you're holding out this info because I "can't handle it." Which sounds like appeal to special knowledge.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Here's an example, this section contains literally zero useful information for anyone that isn't you.
The point of trying to get you to consider the processes in creation originate with God is just the first step in bringing you closer into a connection with the spiritual aspect of yourself as opposed to where you currently are. This is the self that transcends the physical body and its perceptions. You have both an earthly life and experience and on the other side of the coin you have the spiritual aspect of life and its experience. All in all (IMO), this doesn't really have much to do with beliefs per say as it has more to do with your progress and experience of that which transcends the physical sense perception, your spiritual connection.
It sounds all woo woo and pseudo deep but it's just campfire college kid stoner stuff man. What can anyone do with this?
You mean you produced an argument? where?
Here:
"No one has ever demonstrated any life or plane or realm or whatever dimension except the one we currently live in. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that everyone who's ever died is still dead, that's the fate that awaits us all, we march toward it inexorably with varying levels of bravura, and when it arrives, that's it."
Some things you can handle now and other things you cannot.
Please deomnstarte any other proposition wherein this is true.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
None of that remotely disputes what I said. Look, I enjoy smoking weed too, but I don't feel like I'm tuning into other frequencies and other realms and dimensions. You might need to give me your guy's number if that's what you're getting!
Seriously, the short answer is "no, I can't demonstrate it". That's not compelling. "It exists": how can I know that? And don't write a poem about it. Give me the instructions.
You mention all sorts of religions. Do you think they're all correct?
Created: