How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 138
Topic's author
#61
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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 Christians
There’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?
#62
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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?

#63
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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 Christians
There’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?
Topic's author
#64
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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.
#65
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Rational is as rational does.

And judgement is arrogance.

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.

#66
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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?


#67
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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


#68
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
1) If God or Gods did it, then what did Gods.

2) You say happenstance I say coincidence and one could say exactly the same thing about Gods.

Oh! Coincidentally there was a Big Bang.

Oh! Coincidentally there was a God.

In fact neither starting point is particularly reasonable, as both are reliant on something somehow appearing out of nothing. Which is completely unreasonable.

And so what is the third option? Please tell.
#69
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Reece101
How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?
One way to settle the existence of God in debate or to articulate an opposing view would be to correlate energy with intelligence (or the nature of) as the starting point or linking point, to begin the process of bridging the gap between worldviews and interpretations of evidence, correlating it with intelligence, and intelligence with processes, and processes of course are what we observe play out in the material universe. Simply put...If "evidence" is an indicator that a proposition is true or likely cross referencing and common sense are spirituality's (Theism) most effective tools... because we are correlating the evidence with a Theistic view of what we observe. 
Remember that since science is a neutral study it's the interpretation of that study that makes the distinction in any case or theory even materialism or Atheism, as well Theism.  And so we can use the interpretation of evidence to begin with to propose what is more likely or logical, or that what we observe through the scientific method (such as evolution) are the processes of a Creator because processes are associated with intelligence. 
This isn't making things up or wishful thinking, this is correlating the evidence with what is more likely or more logical....what is the "evidence" an indicator of?
Again the point is reconciling the existence of a Creator in debate which is the point of the OP. We reconcile Theism by correlating obvious evidence with its propositions. For example using NDE's as support for the proposition that consciousness survives death, indicating that the claim of a soul is very likely or at least a valid claim. Another example would be as I pointed out above, that energy as we observe it operates as intelligence or through processes, and processes as we directly observe only happens through a mind, or an intelligent source ect ect...
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Despite what the majority believes, faith is not about beliefs it's about trust. Faith (spiritual faith) is trust and confidence in something, trust and confidence come through reason and experience, knowing and evidence. So....knowing and confidence in God is the power of faith, because that knowing and trust didn't come through believing in what man says, but in experiencing what is true about God through evidence and application. When a persons trust and confidence grows, that is their "faith" in that thing or something....and a person can't trust in something or have confidence in something without experience or good evidence/reason.
This is why Jesus of the Gospels correlates an individuals confidence with their faith in God, because the two go hand in hand, you can't have faith without confidence they are the same thing, only faith has a spiritual overtone. This spiritual confidence is what produces fruit or evidence, it's a spiritual tool to overcome obstacles, beliefs play only a small role only to bridge the gap between what we can see and what can take place or happen. Either way faith is an individual application, meaning that one can be a Theist and have no faith at all, and one can be a Theist and have much faith, because faith is about an individuals confidence in God. This is also not about religion per say, as a person who might be an agnostic concerning religion could have more faith than a believer in a particular belief system. Because again, faith is not about beliefs or religious dogma but trust and confidence. It's a universal element that can be applied to anyone. 

Topic's author
#70
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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
Why do you think gods make little sense compared to just one god? Is it just the book(s) you go by and what you’ve been taught? 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. 

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.

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.
#71
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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)

***



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. 
#72
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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 reasonable
Why 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.   
#73
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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?
Topic's author
#74
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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.
All you need is one god to be wrong in logic, memory and emotion. God has been depicted as pretty emotional in the bible.
Have you heard the problems in genesis? Or wouldn’t you consider that canon to God? 

[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.

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.

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.

You don’t need why, you just need how.
Topic's author
#75
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
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. 
#76
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I highly doubt a thing called a universe existed before i did. 
Topic's author
#77
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We don’t take too kindly to solipsists around these parts.
Topic's author
#78
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Joking by the way

#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@PGA2.0
@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.


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. Nature itself is as the "mind" of God. I would like to reiterate though that God is of a different nature than created things, and so God truly preceeds mind. 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. 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. 



#80
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
"Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.
My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.
I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:
That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

#81
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Mopac
I think it would be more accurate to say that God preceeds mind

It's more accurate to say that man invented all gods, including yours
#82
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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 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. 


#83
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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.

#84
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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?
#85
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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. 


#86
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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. 
Topic's author
#87
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Alright, you win.
#88
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I am not denying the mind of God or the omniscience of God. In fact I am openly declaring it.


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. 





#89
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Alright, you win.
Thanks for the concession, but my hope is that it engaged your thinking and that you thought about it in a more thorough way.

#90
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@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.