Total posts: 2,033
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible teaches that God has chosen to speak to us through a people and from them via a written revelation. Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter. Thus, He provides the meaning just like if I am to get what you are saying I have to understand what you said and not read something into your words that they do not convey.Lots of people have voices in their heads that they think is God speaking to them (like David Koresh), but these voices do not comply with the written revelation. Thus, we have a blueprint and a discernment within what He says.
But people who supposedly spoke with God (probably with God’s voice in their head) that wrote controversial “revelations“, you believe?
There are many sections of Isaiah that are prophetic. The OT contains types or shadows. Do you understand what I mean by that? The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus. Isaiah 53 speaks of His crucifixion and resurrection plus many other things. Passages that speak of the "last days" usually speak of the NT times. If you do not know or ignore the history of the times the passages can get confusing as to their fulfillment.
If they’re “types” or “shadows”, that’s all they are, going by what you’ve said...
“Thus, according to that revelation, if something does not comply with its teachings it is not something to be believed. It also teaches that His Word is its own interpreter”
Did “The many passages of the "suffering servant" speak of Jesus.” actually mention him by name?
Again, He has given you everything needed. Jesus said, "It is finished." The work of making us right with God was accomplished by Jesus and His promised Second Coming (I believe the Bible teaches AD 70 is complete) is fulfilled. That means the judgments spoken of that concern OT Israel have been fulfilled also. It also means the Old Covenant is no longer active. We now live under a "new covenant." That is the one Jesus made for all those who would believe in Him. Thus, any voice that does not confirm and conform to His word is sketchy, IMO.
Which word? We’re all human.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There are various things that don't make sense if there is no Mind behind the universe. The problem with these things is that we live inconsistently in denying God if God is true. Why live a life with meaning and purpose if it all doesn't matter? Without God our worldview or system of thinking will make us live inconsistently because of all the clues God has given us to inform us of His existence. Why look for meaning in a meaningless universe? Why are we searching for things to fulfill and give meaning to our lives? Ultimately, in such a universe devoid of God, nothing matters.***
Humans have had meaning for hundreds of thousands of years before “God revealing himself” and we’ll continue to in the future. I think all animals have values which they mean to attain. Human just have more complex ones.
How does consciousness come from something devoid of it?
I can only tell you what I think consciousness is. Consciousness is the ability for matter to react to stimuli. That’s it. Is a rock aware of hitting the pavement if all it’s doing is obeying the laws of nature?
What do you think it is? Why do you think it’s special?
Why, in a meaningless universe without intent or purpose, is there uniformity? Uniformity is inconsistent with chance happenstance. I like the analogy of throwing a dice. First, there is a cause and effect. The dice do not roll themselves, but supposing this is possible, would you expect a result of six every time to be sustained? There is no reason this would happen unless a mind was behind the roll, and it would be inconsistent to think it could be based on trial and error (i.e., you doing it and see how long you can sustain sixes, repeatedly. It works in theory but never in practice). To get a fixed result the dice would have to be fixed. The roll would have to be the same every time, the surface the same, the bounce the same, and you get the idea. I believe intent is needed for that to happen (fixed).
- Have you heard of the multiverse? I’m not saying that it’s true. If it were true, I think we would have to redefine what the “universe” is.
- Matter/particles have combined to create more complex forms of matter over billions of years. We continue to observe this process.
- Just incase you’re thinking of bringing up the teleological argument for life on Earth, keep in mind the universe is a big place. Tens of billions of light years across. It is estimated that there is 17 billion Earth sized planets in the Milky Way alone. Chance is all we need
Then what about the laws of nature (i.e., gravity, for instance)? We discover these mathematically precise equations that explain things, we do not invent them. We use our minds in formulating them but they are outside of ourselves and independent of whether you or I believe them. The same with numbers. Two is a concept, yet we use twoness to make sense of things. Two does not depend on you or me believing in it, but without it, we could not convey mathematics. So it exists outside of your mind or my mind thinking it, yet it needs a Mind for its existence. Is twoness true always? Does 2+2=4 apply always? If so, then it seems we are not the necessary minds that give it its meaning.
I think all you’re talking about are ways of thinking. We invent new ways of thinking all the time to explain the world we adhere to.
Questions and answers only apply if there’s someone to convey them.
No. I’m saying the universe is eternal without a beginning. Something along the lines of the big bounce hypothesis or something. Yes, I know there’s problems with it.The variety and complexity of life and our understanding in part never reach a full understanding of any given thing.When you say "an infinite universe" are you saying time would be something we create for our limited existence?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Sorry, I made mistake so I deleted my response.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have to start somewhat. Either you start with God exists or you start with a random chance universe as to why you are here, or you ignore the issue altogether. So you beg the question either way, with God or with chance happenstance. Either the universe has a mind behind it, thus intention and purpose, or it is a chance, chaotic happenstance process, or it doesn't matter to you.Are you going to beg the question that the universe started without God? Let me turn the tables on you to show you it works both ways when you get to foundational presuppositions.Eventually, IMO, an argument, if pushed far enough will fall back on itself.You want to prove the universe started and exists without God. You start the argument by assuming that the universe had no Creator, that God does not exist or is not necessary when you ignore that issue of God altogether. Do you understand? So you beg the question. You can't have your foundation be chance happenstance when that is the case you're trying to build. You are jumping the gun.See, using your logic I turned the argument around to you begging the question of origins.
How about I don’t know. I don’t know the origins of the universe if there is one.
If I do think up an idea, I’m not going to claim it as truth as many people do with God.
For me, I think the universe is infinite.
People should be more comfortable saying I don’t know.
We will not agree. You have already made up your mind. You want me to discuss the issue by discounting God's existence. Why don't you start by discounting that the universe is haphazardly here by a random chance process?My question to you is how would you ever believe God exists if you will not believe what He tells you?
Hmm good question, hearing a voice inside my head that’s not my own.
How would I know it’s not my mind deceiving me?
Historically many people have done bad things who have heard voices in their head.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.Do you think God is going to reward you with an intimate knowledge of Himself when you doubt He exists since you will not trust Him? Having said that, I believe there is reasonable and logical evidence for the biblical God that is contained not only in the Bible but also in what God has made, the universe. It declares His knowledge and wisdom.
If he did exist, I think he would understand why I would be suspicious about hearing voices in my head.
As I have said many times, faith in God is not blind faith, an irrational faith, but a reasonable faith.God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will happen in our time-space continuum before it happens. Thus, He tells His people things that will happen before they do (prophecy), sometimes hundreds and thousands of years before they happen. I ask you, is this reasonable to believe? I say - yes - and I would challenge you to dispute prophecy. There are a number of ways you can do this. One is to discredit that the OT was written before the NT. Another is to discredit that the NT is written before AD 70. See if you can do that and have a more reasonable and logical argument by presenting your "evidence" and I will present mine. If you do not want to do this, then don't tell me there is no evidence that gives reasonable proof of God. It is just evidence you do not WANT to believe, so you deny its reasonableness.
If you’re mostly referring to the Book of Isaiah, it’s verses make no claim about predicting anything. The verses do not mention Jesus. Modern scholars do not think there is any OT prophesies about him. They should know more than anyone.
And that is my whole point. No matter how reasonable the evidence is, people will continue to dismiss it because it is offensive to them that they are not in control.
What about if I wasn’t the only one who heard his voice? I would start to give in then. Better yet, what if we all saw his powers as well. I would certainly say I was wrong.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
In the first place God is not known by faith. In the Bible, faith is never used as a means or a tool to know God. In the NT faith is used for the way that people respond to what God has done. This is quite different from belief in God. In the bible God is ASSUMED or PRESUMED to be true. There is never any question as to his existence or not. The Bible never asks people to have faith that God exists. That is simply a nonsense from the Biblical position. It is a modern problem so let moderns figure their own mess out.
What do you mean by “It is a modern problem so let moderns figure their own mess out.“? I don’t follow the reasoning.
Similarly today Christians never ask non-believers to just have faith to believe that God exists. That would be a nonsense position. We don't know God by belief.Secondly, the fact or the reality of God is and must be understood as an axiom. Axiom is not faith based. It is presumption based. It is unprovable although not unquestionable. For instance - reason is also an axiom. As is experience. How do we prove reason as an axiom? We cannot. Can we question it? Of course. Similarly for experience. How does one possible prove logic or reason as a basis for anything? In other words, can we use logic to prove logic? Nonsense!. Logic and reason are good things. As is experience. But both can ultimately lead us into despair.
Axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
I don’t think an axiom is necessarily unprovable. For example if we both saw a red shirt but one of us said it was yellow because that’s what he’s been taught, there is history and linguistics we could refer to. If he actually thinks he sees yellow, there’s science and technology. Now, what if that axiom was the bases for his world view.
By the way I think you’re conflating axiom with unfalsifiability.
Think of the dilemma by Zeno. For an arrow to move it must move either where it is , or where it is not. If it moves where it is, it will remain standing still. If it moves to where it is not - it cannot be there. Therefore an object or the arrow cannot move. This of course demonstrates that logic or reason has difficulties - significant difficulties. Yet we still use it as an axiom. Similarly with experience. One's experience can be quite different to someone else's experience.
That’s why it’s useful to find common ground before starting or moving on. Reason/logic is a big topic. The difficulty of reason depends on the individuals.
Hope I didn’t misunderstand anything.
The issue therefore of the existence of God being an unprovable axiom is not untoward or false or wrong. It just means it is an axiom. But it is a genuine axiom that many people build their lives upon for all sorts of reasons. And it works for many people.
”...And it works for many people.” I don’t dispute that. Keep in mind this is a debate site.
On a debate site - I take the view that God's existence is similarly understood. Different people will have their opinions which are valid to a point - but at the end of the day - people will need to determine what will be the measure they use to accept or reject other 's people's positions. and for that they will need an axiom - for everyone has an axiom - that can be refuted by another axiom. This is the dilemma.
I disagree. As I’ve said, ”That’s why it’s useful to find common ground before starting or moving on.”
It’s only a dilemma if you make it one. Read the last thing I said to PGA2.0 #41.
Can God's existence be reconciled on a debate site? I think the answer is no. Why? Because people have different axioms and refuse to move from that position. Ironically, a person who takes logic as an axiom cannot change. Nor can a person with experience as an axiom.
Yeah I think your conclusion is based on some false pretences. Hopefully we can create/find some common ground.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
There is no neutrality. We all hold biases that start with some foundational presuppositions that tend to lead us to what we will believe. We all startsomewhere. You start somewhere holding that something is true before you can have knowledge of anything else. The question comes down to what is reasonable and what is the truth.
Okay, let’s say you want to prove that God exists. You don’t start your argument by assuming that God already exists. Do you understand? It’s begging the question. You can’t have your foundation be ‘God exists’ when that’s the case you’re trying to build. You’re jumping the gun.
Now, what foundation other than ‘God exists’ that we can both agree to so that you can build your case?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
It is not a trick question, just a hunch since when you quoted "Corinthians 2:5" you never stated 1st or 2nd Corinthians.Also your analogy of a dragon and God. There is plenty of evidence for God.In making sense of anything I begin with God as the reason. If this is God's creation and He has revealed Himself then we must think God's thoughts after Him to make sense of any of it. And we make sense of it when we look to Him first.
Have you heard what begging the question is? It’s when the premise(s) that is meant to support an argument already assumes that the conclusion is true. If you start from a place where the conclusion being argued is already assumed true, then you're not really making an argument at all. There is no supporting evidence.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, does that mean you are not a believer in God?
No. Why do I feel like it’s a trick question.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?
Not from what I’ve come across.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
- Carl Sagan
An unbeliever doesn’t have to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Huh? Yove lost me.
Alright. Imagine there was an impossibly massive wall you could do shadow hands on.
First you start off close and you wave your hand left to right.
The speed in which you move your shadow from point A to point B and back again, essentially mirrors your hand.
But the further you move back, the larger your shadow becomes.
Your shadows point A and point B is relatively further apart to your hands point A and B.
When you’re 340,000mi away from the wall, the speed in which your shadow gets to its point A to Point B is faster than light.
Do you understand now?
CBF replying to anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
No one here has stated or suggested otherwise.A spherical or your spheriod, is not a true{ perfect } sphere.A perfect this or that is just purely an abstract, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept and not an occupied space. Just as macro-infinite this or that is pure abstract concept, except in the case of the macro-infinite Space that embraces/surrounds our finite, occupied space Universe
“No one here has stated or suggested” a “true{ perfect } sphere.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You mean cosmic scale 'inflation'
Pretty much. Although I have trouble with the word.
Inflation implies matter is being input, although the universe is a closed system from what I understand.
Which has little to do with cosmic ‘inflation’ anyway.
Humans create hand shadows all the time and none are faster than speed of radiation.
Yes but the further you are from your hand shadow, the faster it becomes. Correct?
Now imagine seeing your hand shadow on the Moon from Earth.
The last accurate mesuarement of speed of gravity, that I can recall, had to do with Jupitor, and it was same speed as that of radiation, with an error of tolerance at .2% i.e. that gravity could be operating at speeds just and ultra-micro fraction of a second faster.
I’m not talking about gravity. I’m talking about how a vertice can move faster than light.
Contraction { convergent } of Space is known as Gravity ( ) aka mass-attraction.Expansion { divergent } of Space is known as Dark Energy )( aka cosmological constant { See Einsteins early work }Gravity has been referred to { referenced } as the Fabric-of-Space and Time for many years.Now we have too add in Dark Energy as a part of that fabric and those two together weave a toroidal geometric pattern Space( )( )SpaceAdd in Observed Time /\/\/\/ ---i.e. a sine-wave arrow-of-time ---/\/\/--->-- and it begins to represented or referenced this way (/\/\/)(\/\/\/).Then through in bilateral consciousness { * * } and we have the following Space( Time *)(* Time )Space.Then through in the ego { i } as associtated with the most complex biologicals, humans, and we have the following;...........................................Space( Time *) i (* Time )Space................................................................
What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
If a sphere is large enough, does space inside it expand faster than light if the circumference expands?
Created:
Posted in:
Talking about how the universe is expanding faster than light, I wonder if dark energy is actually just a reference point. E.g. If you could create hand shadows from Earth onto the Moon it would be speeding across the surface faster than light. Or if you created a guillotine the size of the Solar System, the vertex (the point in which the curved blade meets the bottom) would travel faster than light. Assuming there were rockets strapped to it or something to apply pressure.
So could dark energy be some sort of an “optical illusion”? I have no idea. Can someone tell me I’m wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I don’t know. You hear people talk about the known universe (which is a sphere), but not much about the unknown universe. Imagine the known universe is the size of a golfball. The diameter of the golfball is how far we can see because the limits of how fast light can travel compared to the speed of expansion (which is faster).The unknown universe, or the universe in general could be the size of Earth in comparison but a different shape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Ignoring your No True Scotsman fallacy, I generally agree with you. There’s a passage for everyone.
I’ve had a read of your profile. What do you mean by ‘we TRUE Jewish Christians’? Judaism doesn’t adhere to the belief in the christian Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
--> @Reece101You are talking nonsense.
I’ve got the feeling you didn’t read all of it. Come back to me when you have.
If you did read all of it, do 2min of research if you lack knowledge.
If you fully know what I’m talking about, you have some gall to say I’m talking nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
--> @vagabondOxford says "Supreme Being"Merriam Webster says "The Supreme and/or Ultimate Reality"Ancient theologians use these same terms.You are clearly the one using the wrong definitions.The Truth is God, and this is no innovation of my own, there is thousands of years of tradition backing me up.
I wish the dragon in my garage could have the same historical importance, because he’s the true ultimate reality.
Too bad for unicorns, witches, giants, dragons (not my dragon), etc that had their parts to play in the bible, which
ancient theologians also believed in. I guess people lost faith in how real the creatures were, which henceforth became defined differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would prefer to be regarded as someone who aspires to be realistic.
Don’t we all.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether it be pain or thoughts, suffering is derived from internal data processing, just the same as any other functional process.The stimulus might be either, externally applied or a self contained dysfunction.I would suggest that it is more likely that it is the manifest of suffering that might be seen to have beauty, rather than the suffering itself.Though perhaps beauty can be found in ones own suffering?As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on.
Where would the beauty be in creating a world without suffering, where everyone was happy, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In terms of morality I define objectivity as a shared/common idea (not necessarily moral) while subjectivity is kept to an individual (not necessarily immoral).
So for me morality is both subjective and objective.
Morality: principles concerning the d͟i͟s͟t͟i͟n͟c͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
To call things "Christian" or that you have the "truth" is already delusion and ego bc you think you know better than "GOD" ... the creator of everything. Bc guess what.. i find beauty in suffering. And god created me too. You just have to deal with it.
So God created you to find beauty in suffering? Is that a good thing?
As an atheist I know suffering to a degree is a necessity for us to grow. But I wouldn’t say I find beauty in it. That would just be sadistic.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
Most people who call themselves Christian do it solely for the community. That goes for many other “religious people” as well. Not much thought has to go into it. It’s could blind faith.
Created:
-->
@bronskibeat
Bill Maher used to be a leftist when he was fighting against interventionism and corporatism. Not anymore. He’s a sell-out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
secularmerlin, when arguing against the type of creationism he’s talking about, it’s good to start off with microevolution. Which is essentially the same thing as macroevolution (or evolution in general), just that is happens in a much shorter time period. It’s also good to start small and work your way up in terms of organisms.
crossed, can you admit that pesticide resistance, herbicide resistance, and antibiotic resistance are all a byproduct of adaptation through natural selection?
Created:
Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Created: