Well stated.
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.
We don't make them up. We discover them.
Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance.
Purpose and meaning require intent and agency.
God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum)
Christianity is undoubtedly a demonstrable faith...As demonstrated by faithful Christians.It is the hypothetical basis of faith, that is not demonstrable.
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.My reasoning for 2+2=4? Are you essentially arguing that because 2+2=4, Jesus? You are making a giant leap from "because we've figured out math, the universe requires a creator, AND that creator is Jesus. Can you explain the difference between me stumbling around and you knowing JEsu made math work, like in practical every day terms? What's the impact on your life, or what's the negative impact you perceive on my life? You have not once answered these questoins, in spite of saying rather arrogantly you've 'made sense of the universe.'
We don't make them up. We discover them.True!Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance.This is the leap. There's no reason to make this conclusion based on what you've laid out. All you can conclude is that the principles in question are consistent for some reason. Anything beyond that requires one of two things: evidence that can be demonstrated independently (not your feelings), OR a leap to an unjustified conclusion. You're making the latter.
Purpose and meaning require intent and agency.Can you demonstrate that these two things are "built into the universe"? Or are you just going to say "THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT MAKES SENSE!" (argument from incredulity / ignorance)
God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum)Where can I confirm the existence of this other time continuum? IF I can do that, I can find whichever god lives there? And who created this other time continuum, since nothing can create itself?
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.Except if he does a bungee jump, can the presence of the bungee cord be independently confirmed? He has faith in the idea that whoever fastend the cord did so properly, after the proper training, but he doesn't make the leap if someone says "Trust me, there's a bungee cord tied to you" without looking at the actual bungee cord, right? THe bungee cord doesn't only function if he BELIEVES it's there. It functions regardless. Unlike the way you describe anything to do with god: you have to believe it first, then you can confirm your beliefs. This, of course, is just confirmation bias.
I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance.Can one control for this? That is isolate that which we perceive from discovery and rationalize through conceptualization and that which which we allege is independent from the former? How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?
I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.Not just used to described but to inform (i.e. mathematics and the physical laws of nature.) Other than that, you hit the nail right on the head.
But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?Yes. Even if one argues that we replace the forms that one alleges "identify," what defines it being four physical objects? Our descriptions. Our conceptualization.
But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?I don't presume to have access to God's mind.
The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a familyFactory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.Look at those descriptions again. Neither excludes the other. A house is actually a place where goods are manufactured (e.g. food, clean clothes, etc.) And what do you see in the description of a factory that would exclude a family from living in it?
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? AYOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.
Then I question whether you know the Christian God.
How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God?
That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that?
The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son.
Is [your] god a personal god?
Who or what is your god?
Are you it.
is [your] god an actual being?
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same building
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members.
So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both.
Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???
Faith or trust or hope or choice in something tangible within the context of a perceivable experience, is somewhat different to faith in one particular hypothetical deity.
.........you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being.
.........you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being.I think you will find that all intelligent beings "willy-nilly" came into being.
Just as all life on earth came "willy-nilly" into being.
Anybody who erroneously chooses to believe otherwise is egotistical and self-centred.
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? AYOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this? How can one know this? In order to "know," you require the use of your mind; so then how does one "know" of that which is independent of one's mind? In order to do this, one would have to control (reduce variance) for that which you allege "is" independent of the influence, conceptions, rationalizations, and manipulations of one's mind. That is, to isolate and extract and observe how it behaves. Consequentially, the use of the mind would be prohibited. That means, no math; no science, no language, no logic. What's left? Irrationality.
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.Without the mind, physicality would be irrational. Even when considering somatosensation, and the process of interpreting information from stimuli, what would any of that be without conception and rationalization? One "feels something." What's the difference between feeling something and not feeling something? What if one couldn't verbalize that sensation? What if there was no language? Once again, in order to assert that there's something which "is" independent of one's mind, one would have to control for independence.
Then I question whether you know the Christian God.I do not know the Christian God; I know of the Christian God. And why are you qualifying God with the adjective, "Christian"?
How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God?Fairly well. I don't see how Tien is any less existent than God.
That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that?Through the Mandate of Heaven and Confucius.
The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son.So then, once again, why do you qualify God with the description "Judeo-Christian?"
Is [your] god a personal god?Tien is not a personal God.
Who or what is your god?"My" God does not register. God is not possessed.
Are you it.I don't practice suitheism.
is [your] god an actual being?What do you mean by "actual"? Material? Or does the distinction not matter?
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same buildingWe're not discussing "usual behavior" since "usual behavior" doesn't qualify their descriptions.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members.Where in your cited description of a house does it state that a house necessitates a bedroom, kitchen, or den?
So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both.What qualifications? Once again, point out to me the exact description that precludes a house from being a factory, and vice versa.
Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???You're appealing to incredulity. We're discussing whether the descriptions of a house and factory, and the argument that both can be the same, demonstrates a contradiction.
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?
The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution
by natural selection
and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.
The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.
Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution by natural selection and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?I can see how perhaps you are so mixed up and confused.You see, I correctly cited viable, authoritative evidence to back up what I stated.
Looking through your posts I can see not one iota of evidence to back your stance (presumably of creation) and it is very telling that you seem to be unaware of who Richard Dawkins is.
It is a common characteristic of those who firmly believe in God to shun and ignore facts in order to protect themselves from their ill-gotten, absurd beliefs.
Just so everyone knows, all the wlw alts are fake accounts by the moron Willows who has again broken into the site to tell us how terrible Jesus is - as a public service, (not because he is bitter and has OCD).
Let's go back to my point which you clearly rejected.I quoted Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as a definitive work on the fact that life evolved as a result of evolution through natural selection.
The findings are irrefutable and fully backed up with carefully researched evidence, none of which has been successfully challenged.
So, the fact of evolution through natural selection stands and any notion or theory of creation is completely nullified. There is no God and life was not created.
What evidence do you think have to support your (supposed) notion that God exists and we were created?
His idea of dialogue is limited to setting himself up to post another diatribe against God. In seven years I saw no difference.If a guy has to repeatedly create fake alts and break into a private site just to spew his hatred of Christianity with basically the same post over and over, how sincere can he be?But his lame over the top repetitive vitriol does give us the chance to evangelize. He thinks he's "exposing" Christianity tilting at windmills.
Yes, there is a chance to ask him to be accountable and when he is not expose his thinking as biased or unsound. IMO, there is an extreme confirmational bias going on here on his part. If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.
