 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | I ask what is an "at-will" testable formula? |
This would be your at-will testable formula.
1. The relevant God exists and;
2. The relevant God actually revealed the claimed words and;
3. The claimed words are an accurate reproduction of the revealed words and;
4. The words are unambiguous and;
5. The relevant God had no wish to mislead humans. |
You have given me an example but no definition...?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: |
You ignore whole fields such as maths and physics that deal with absolutes such as absolute zero or the speed of light or real numbers. We've dealt with these concepts for many years and have done very well, thank you. |
I don't ignore these fields at all, but so called science fails to give due recognition to the master mathematician whom created these absolutes which govern the universe. In this way science then becomes dogmatic itself. |
Nonsense! If you show there is any way to study your "master mathematician" either directly or indirectly you would have scientists seeking you out to study this guy. Instead we have an unsupported assertion from Colter that a "master mathematician" exists (show me) and unfounded criticism of science for ignoring him! We cannot study something that does not exist Colter. You start by telling us how you know this being exists and we could make progress.
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: |
Humans are finite in the sense of having a finite lifespan. Our intellectual abilities MAY be finite but we have no idea where the boundary of our possible knowlege is. We do know that each year we learn more than we learned in the previous year and the rate of growth is accelerating. |
Science discovers things that have already been created. |
It's true that science studies things that exist but it also studies how things come to exist. If you believe things were "created" then you should demonstrate the truth of your beliefs instead of stating them without evidence.
Knowledge gained through science also contributes to the development of things like mobile 'phones and TVs. You are not suggested these things have already been created are you?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: |
You say "Science ...lacks infinite information to make statements of final value."
Science never claims to make ANY statements of final value. ALL scientific claims are provisional. They are based on known evidence and therefore may change in the light of new evidence. That's what makes the scientific method so powerful and why it is the opposite of dogma. |
Science leaves it's home when it seeks to invalidate spiritual truth. In the same way religion should not concern itself with science but rather with the scientist. |
You say, "[science] seeks to invalidate spiritual truth." This is nonsense Colter. Science seeks to discover truth. If there is such a thing as spiritual truth, why would science wish to invalidate it? That's the complete opposite of what science is trying to do. In any case how can anyone or anything invalidate truth? Truth is truth and will always be so regardless what you or I or anyone else says about it.
Colter, tell me a method that is better able reliably to discover things about the universe (spiritual or otherwise) than the scientific method and I will listen to you. I really would like you to do this--it should be illuminating.
I apologise if you feel that I am less patient with you than I am with others here but I find your style very frustrating and to get it off my chest I'll be specific.
1. You make assertions but constantly fail to provide evidence.
2. You frequently fail to address arguments directly, preferring to rely on quotations from a crazy book as if it were some kind of authority.
3. You use perfectly good words but in sequences that make no sense or are highly ambiguous.
4. You criticise science whilst simultaneously demonstrating your complete ignorance of it.
I'm sure we could have a productive discussion if you could overcome these weakenesses.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Argent,
Why are you getting frustrated so quickly? If you are only an electrochemical machine then why do you not always respond the same way, like the speed of light?
Science, the study of the material universe, is a good thing, I have no quarrel with science. But when atheistic scientist enters into the realm of spirituality with the hope of applying the same principles to spiritual truth then that's where problems arise. When you argue that the scientist approach to life is the only unassailable technique of analyzing the cosmos then you have begun a contradiction; you insist that man is a machine but make supermaterial value judgments concerning origin and destiny.
For example, "Mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities. Not only in the realms of life but even in the world of physical energy, the sum of two or more things is very often something more than, or something different from, the predictable additive consequences of such unions. The entire science of mathematics, the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance--liquid water. The understanding knowledge of this one physiochemical phenomenon should have prevented the development of materialistic philosophy and mechanistic cosmology.
Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or a thing can do. Water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn."
| Quote: | | Nonsense! If you show there is any way to study your "master mathematician" either directly or indirectly you would have scientists seeking you out to study this guy. Instead we have an unsupported assertion from Colter that a "master mathematician" exists (show me) and unfounded criticism of science for ignoring him! We cannot study something that does not exist Colter. You start by telling us how you know this being exists and we could make progress. |
Man can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God by a scientific method, God can only be revealed in the lives that we live, by the Love that we have for one another.
I have never known anyone who came to the realization of the presence of God in the heart of man by the technique of logic, of a scientific approach.
To this finite mind God is so obvious that he is blinding. For the true atheist, who maintains a kind of materialistic faith in his unprovable doctrine of doubt, the experience of such a position may eventually lead to the realization of God, or death is his only reward for a meaningless life, the final crowning insult to his life purpose.
| Quote: | It's true that science studies things that exist but it also studies how things come to exist. If you believe things were "created" then you should demonstrate the truth of your beliefs instead of stating them without evidence.
Knowledge gained through science also contributes to the development of things like mobile 'phones and TVs. You are not suggested these things have already been created are you? |
I guess, Argenta, intelligent design is obvious to me, it's the result of a common wisdom. I would say that in the weight of so much evidence to the contrary it is the true atheistic scientist who has the burden of proving how life accidentally happened with no volitional force behind it.
I provided a good list of arguments to the fallacy of the materialistic approach but that angered you. Those arguments melt the icy intellectual mountain of the purely materialistic approach to life.
| Quote: | | You say, "[science] seeks to invalidate spiritual truth." This is nonsense Colter. Science seeks to discover truth. If there is such a thing as spiritual truth, why would science wish to invalidate it? That's the complete opposite of what science is trying to do. In any case how can anyone or anything invalidate truth? Truth is truth and will always be so regardless what you or I or anyone else says about it. |
No, science seeks to discover "material" truths, it has no basis for the study of "spiritual" truth. Science cannot quantify, measure or predict Love.
Spiritual truth is a "living truth", not the letter of the law. Spiritual truth will always be true but because it is living, it cannot be predicted. God is a personality and so much more, he cannot be predicted like a machine.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Tiger
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 840
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Argenta wrote: | | Nonsense! If you show there is any way to study your "master mathematician" either directly or indirectly you would have scientists seeking you out to study this guy. Instead we have an unsupported assertion from Colter that a "master mathematician" exists (show me) and unfounded criticism of science for ignoring him! |
Hi folks. Good topic Argenta and Colter. Plato, according to a tradition recorded by Plutarch believed so. Plutarch wrote "pos Platon elege ton theon aei geometrein." Plutarch tells us Plato claimed that God eternally geometrizes. We do not have Plato's statement in anything directly written by him, but the sentiment does seem to be Plato's.
Many scientists have agreed and seen an argument for God in the mathematical symmetries of the universe. James Jeans wrote an article on this: check out James Jeans. Philosophy, Vol. 7, No. 25, 3-14. Jan., 1932.
For those who have all the permissions in place, the following link will work: Article by Jeans.
It is the last paragraph of the paper which is the most interesting and most controversial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: Inerrancy |
|
|
Thank you Colter for those thoughts, which provide an indepth analysis of the inability of man to recognize and accept his irrelevance in the overall plan of things.
Argenta, science has as its base, physical materials about which it has, in many cases very accurately, developed laws.
Albert Einstein, it is stated, not long prior to his departure, declared that all his work proved was that there had to be a GOD.
Being a Jew he may have been biased, and scientists, being scientists also may confess to specific biases to support and hopefully validate their hypotheses, but still they are only playing with toys that have been provided by some unknown Source.
If we again reduce all matter to its lowest or most original level, all we have is energy vibrating at a particular frequency, it has no mass.
Thus, being massless, it does not exist out side our mind and we only identify it as a specific material through our five senses, which of course, we did NOT provide for ourselves.
Proof of anything scientific is dependant on sensual response, which is again limited.
Do cows recognize the speed of light as we do?
No, they have different mental processes, does that make the cow's thought process any less legitimate?
No, only different.
Does my belief in a GOD make me any less intelligent than a scientist, I think not, it is just that my thought processes are directed in different channels.
Argenta, that you do not believe what I believe is entirely your prerogative, and that you feel your beliefs are possibly threatened by mine is surely a sign of insecurity in the validity of your beliefs.
That GOD chose to make a world, just that HE may validate HIS existence by physical manifestation is HIS prerogative, isn't it?
That HE chose to father a specie in and through which HE chose to manifest HIMSELF is again something which no scientist will ever be able to disprove nor alter.
GOD vindicates, proves HIS reality, HIS authenticity, by bringing to pass that which HE spoke.
E.G. "GOD said,'Let there be light'.
We have light, problem solved.
Can any scientist create light out of nothing?
Can you Argenta, make a tree which will grow, from seed, reproduce itself and do so for an extended period of time?
Can science, without playing with the elements already provided, CREATE anything?
To create is to make out of nothing, so let science produce, from an absolute vacuum, a crocodile.
Argenta, my friend, it is not necessary for us to try to disprove your beliefs, true science should reveal to you the shakiness of the ground on which science is founded.
That GOD allowed another species of humans to manifest, through hybridization in the Garden of Eden is again demonstration of HIS desire to fulfil HIS will, to EXPRESS, REVEAL HIMSELF.
Nowhere does HE say that all will recognize HIM, as LORD and FATHER, in fact, it is clear that ONLY HIS CHILDREN, ever will.
This is a tough rap, and is why the denominations work so hard to deceive their congregations, as, if the TRUTH were taught, most church goers would recognize their position and cast religion to the wind.
Science is only man tinkering with GOD'S expression of HIMSELF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colter wrote: | | Why are you getting frustrated so quickly? If you are only an electrochemical machine then why do you not always respond the same way, like the speed of light? |
Not quickly—it’s taken me a week to get frustrated with you. After some time to give them the benefit of the doubt, I probably do always respond in the same way to people who:
1. Make assertions but constantly fail to provide evidence.
2. Frequently fail to address arguments directly, preferring to rely on quotations from a crazy book as if it were some kind of authority.
3. Use perfectly good words but in sequences that make no sense or are highly ambiguous.
4. Criticise science whilst simultaneously demonstrating their complete ignorance of it.
And I’ll add two more points to the list:
5. You frequently ignore important questions addressed to you.
6. You invent statements and claim that I made them.
| Colter wrote: | | Science, the study of the material universe, is a good thing, I have no quarrel with science. But when atheistic scientist enters into the realm of spirituality with the hope of applying the same principles to spiritual truth then that's where problems arise. When you argue that the scientist approach to life is the only unassailable technique of analyzing the cosmos then you have begun a contradiction; you insist that man is a machine but make supermaterial value judgments concerning origin and destiny. |
I did not say “scientist approach to life is the only unassailable technique of analyzing the cosmos”. I said “tell me a method that is better able reliably to discover things about the universe (spiritual or otherwise) than the scientific method and I will listen to you.” I am open-minded and if there is a better way to understand the universe than the scientific method, I’d love to hear about it. Unfortunately, you failed to offer anything.
So here we have examples of errors 5 and 6 on my list in a single paragraph!
And where did I make “supermaterial value judgments concerning origin and destiny”? And what are supermaterial value judgements? Error 3, I suspect.
| Colter wrote: | | For example, "Mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities. |
Colter, what does “higher realization of truth “ mean? [error 3]
You need to demonstrate that there are spiritual realities. If you cannot your statement is complete nonsense.
| Colter wrote: | | Not only in the realms of life but even in the world of physical energy, the sum of two or more things is very often something more than, or something different from, the predictable additive consequences of such unions. The entire science of mathematics, the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance--liquid water. The understanding knowledge of this one physiochemical phenomenon should have prevented the development of materialistic philosophy and mechanistic cosmology. |
Let me see if I understand what you mean. Your argument is:
Premise: If you did not know that the fusion of Hx2 and Ox1 atoms forms water, you would not be able to predict it.
Conclusion: Therefore there should be no materialist philosophy and no materialist cosmology.
Oh dear Colter, it looks as if I’m going to have to add yet another error to your list:
7. Use of logically invalid arguments.
Just think about this for a moment. It is a property of oxygen and hydrogen that combined in a certain way form water. It is a completely reliable process. There are no recorded examples where it has produced something else. There is no need to assume that anything non-material is happening or intervening in the process. You may or may not be right that the formation of water is unpredictable (I don’t know we’d have to ask a chemist) so let’s grant you that for now. But the formation of water is not an example of a non-material process so it does not in any way contradict materialist cosmology. If it’s true that we could not predict it, it would only illustrate our lack of understanding of molecular bonding. Furthermore, to correct this deficiency we would use science, not prayer or revelation or meditation.
| Colter wrote: | | Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or a thing can do. Water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn. |
Water extinguishes fire in a simple way that could be predicted if it were not known. It takes heat from the fire, partly directly and partly through latent heat of change of state (when the water turns to steam). Taking heat away reduces the fire’s temperature and eventually the temperature becomes too low to sustain the chemical reaction.
| Colter wrote: | | Man can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God by a scientific method, God can only be revealed in the lives that we live, by the Love that we have for one another. |
More absurd Colter logic [error 7]:
Premise: Humans love one another
Conclusion: Therefore there is a god.
Duhh!
| Colter wrote: | I have never known anyone who came to the realization of the presence of God in the heart of man by the technique of logic, of a scientific approach.
To this finite mind God is so obvious that he is blinding. |
OK Colter, tell us about your god. I accept reason and evidence will not reveal him. So why is it so obvious to you? Does it talk to you? Describe its voice. Male or female? What language does it speak? What accent does it have? What does it say to you?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | It's true that science studies things that exist but it also studies how things come to exist. If you believe things were "created" then you should demonstrate the truth of your beliefs instead of stating them without evidence.
Knowledge gained through science also contributes to the development of things like mobile 'phones and TVs. You are not suggested these things have already been created are you? |
I guess, Argenta, intelligent design is obvious to me, it's the result of a common wisdom. I would say that in the weight of so much evidence to the contrary it is the true atheistic scientist who has the burden of proving how life accidentally happened with no volitional force behind it. |
I love evidence Colter. Show me the evidence. But remember, if you find a gap in our knowledge, such as how abiogenesis occurred, you have not proved there is a god; you have merely proved there is a gap and you must leave open the possibility that one day the gap may be replaced by knowledge.
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | You say, "[science] seeks to invalidate spiritual truth." This is nonsense Colter. Science seeks to discover truth. If there is such a thing as spiritual truth, why would science wish to invalidate it? That's the complete opposite of what science is trying to do. In any case how can anyone or anything invalidate truth? Truth is truth and will always be so regardless what you or I or anyone else says about it. |
No, science seeks to discover "material" truths, it has no basis for the study of "spiritual" truth. Science cannot quantify, measure or predict Love. |
Again you show your lamentable lack of knowledge. Love is a material truth. We understand the underlying material processes that produce the emotion down to the level of individual molecules. I have discussed this at length elsewhere on this forum so I will not repeat myself.
Spiritual things are claimed to have an effect on material things so they can be studied using the scientific method. A lot of work has been done on spiritual things including religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and prayer. Masses or research has been done on the paranormal. As soon as any of this work demonstrates that ANYTHING supernatural exists, you will see millions of non-believers changing their minds. Don’t hold your breath though!
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will quickly try to answer your questions however it is likely a waste of time, you are currently blinded by your own ego and under the spell of the Luciferian atheist meme.
| Quote: | | And where did I make “supermaterial value judgments concerning origin and destiny”? |
You insist that the universe is strictly material (not spiritual) but you rise above your electrochemical machine to to make values judgments about ideals.
| Quote: | | Colter, what does “higher realization of truth “ mean? |
Cosmic consciousness, the realization of spiritual values; truth, beauty and goodness.
| Quote: | Let me see if I understand what you mean. Your argument is:
Premise: If you did not know that the fusion of Hx2 and Ox1 atoms forms water, you would not be able to predict it.
Conclusion: Therefore there should be no materialist philosophy and no materialist cosmology.
Oh dear Colter, it looks as if I’m going to have to add yet another error to your list:
7. Use of logically invalid arguments. |
No, you don't get it. With the hard headed scientist, who won't believe until it's proven (spiritually lazy), you have nothing in your science that could have predicted that Hx2 and Ox1 atoms forms water aside from those two elements already being combined. If mankind were to trust your strictly analytical approach then you would warn the fire department against using water to extinguish fire.
| Quote: | Premise: Humans love one another
Conclusion: Therefore there is a god.
Duhh! |
God is love
| Quote: | | OK Colter, tell us about your god. I accept reason and evidence will not reveal him. |
your un teachable
| Quote: | | So why is it so obvious to you? |
the gift of the spirit birth
| Quote: | | Does it talk to you? |
yes
| Quote: | | Describe its voice. Male or female? |
neither
| Quote: | | What language does it speak? |
the language of the heart
| Quote: | | What accent does it have? |
friendly
| Quote: | | What does it say to you? |
follow me
| Quote: |
Again you show your lamentable lack of knowledge. Love is a material truth. We understand the underlying material processes that produce the emotion down to the level of individual molecules. I have discussed this at length elsewhere on this forum so I will not repeat myself.
Spiritual things are claimed to have an effect on material things so they can be studied using the scientific method. A lot of work has been done on spiritual things including religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and prayer. Masses or research has been done on the paranormal. As soon as any of this work demonstrates that ANYTHING supernatural exists, you will see millions of non-believers changing their minds. Don’t hold your breath though! |
Human things must be known in order to be loved, divine things must be loved in order to be known.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colter wrote: | | I will quickly try to answer your questions however it is likely a waste of time, you are currently blinded by your own ego… |
And your evidence is?
| Colter wrote: | | …and under the spell of the Luciferian atheist meme |
And your evidence is?
| Colter wrote: | | You insist that the universe is strictly material (not spiritual) but you rise above your electrochemical machine to to make values judgments about ideals. |
I do not “insist” that the universe is strictly material but, as there is no evidence that anything spiritual exists, I will believe the universe is strictly material until evidence to the contrary surfaces. But why do you assume that an electromechanical machine cannot make value judgements I wonder? I don’t suppose you have any evidence for that assertion… ?
| Colter wrote: | | God is love |
Seriously, is this your definition of God Colter?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | So why is it so obvious to you [that God exists]? |
the gift of the spirit birth |
What is the “spirit birth”?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | Does it talk to you? |
yes
| Quote: | | Describe its voice. Male or female? |
neither
| Quote: | | What language does it speak? |
the language of the heart |
This was a serious question Colter. Does it speak a known language such as English? If not, how did you learn to understand it? Or maybe it does not speak a language at all (love doesn’t), maybe it just excites emotions in you? Please try to answer this unambiguously.
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | What accent does it have? |
Friendly |
Its voice may be friendly but that’s not an accent. Please try to be precise. Is it an American accent? If so, what region?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | What does it say to you? |
follow me |
Is that all—nothing else?
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | Again you show your lamentable lack of knowledge. Love is a material truth. We understand the underlying material processes that produce the emotion down to the level of individual molecules. I have discussed this at length elsewhere on this forum so I will not repeat myself.
Spiritual things are claimed to have an effect on material things so they can be studied using the scientific method. A lot of work has been done on spiritual things including religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and prayer. Masses or research has been done on the paranormal. As soon as any of this work demonstrates that ANYTHING supernatural exists, you will see millions of non-believers changing their minds. Don’t hold your breath though! |
Human things must be known in order to be loved, divine things must be loved in order to be known. |
So if I understand you correctly, the process to know whether anything divine exists is persuade yourself to love something that you do not believe exists and then you will realise that it does exist. Is that right Colter?
How is it possible to persuade yourself to love something that you do not believe exists? For example, as an experiment, if I asked you to love the Flying Spaghetti Monster would you be able to do it? And if you could make yourself love His Noodliness, would that make Him exist?
But let’s assume that you pull off this extraordinary feat, what evidence do you then get that the divine exists? Is it just voices in your head?
And should I assume that this trick works for all gods whether they exist or not? It’s obvious that many gods are believed in as devoutly as you believe in the Judeo-Christian god. Why do you think this process works just as well for gods that don’t exist as it does for gods that do exist?
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | | Does my belief in a GOD make me any less intelligent than a scientist, I think not, it is just that my thought processes are directed in different channels. |
I think we can both agree that belief in god is not the result of a rational reasoning process—it is an emotional process and consequently the result is not a rational belief it is a preference. You believe in god because you like to. Consequently, there need be no relationship between level of intelligence and belief in god any more than there is a relationship between intelligence and liking chocolate ice-cream.
And that is why it is very difficult to persuade someone through reason that their god does not exist—it’s like trying to persuade someone that they don’t really like chocolate ice-cream!
There is a problem though. As far as I can see, there are NO valid arguments that god exists and there is NO evidence. I remain open to change my mind but so far I have found nothing. Given this, it is impossible for a theist to rationalise his own beliefs, should he wish to do so. So theists have to close their minds to reason or rely on faulty arguments and deny perfectly good contrary evidence to avoid uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
| John R Nolan wrote: | | Argenta, that you do not believe what I believe is entirely your prerogative, and that you feel your beliefs are possibly threatened by mine is surely a sign of insecurity in the validity of your beliefs. |
Wow!! Where did you get that idea from John? Just remember I prefer to base my beliefs on evidence and reason; when you can offer these to support your beliefs, I’ll agree with you. In the meantime, I don’t feel in the least threatened because I don’t mind changing my opinions.
| John R Nolan wrote: | GOD vindicates, proves HIS reality, HIS authenticity, by bringing to pass that which HE spoke.
E.G. "GOD said,'Let there be light'.
We have light, problem solved.
Can any scientist create light out of nothing? |
Thank you John for demonstrating the truth of my point that Christians have to “rely on faulty arguments” and I didn’t have to wait many sentences for you to do it! This is a real lulu!
Let’s just analyse your implied syllogism.
Premise (implied): God is real
Premise (implied): The Genesis account of creation is true
Premise: GOD said,'Let there be light' and there was light which no human could create
Conclusion: Therefore God is real.
I’m sure you can see there is a good reason why you are not allowed to use the thing you are trying to prove (god is real) as a premise. It’s called CIRCULAR reasoning. You skilfully manage to create a nested double circular argument. Your first premise, god exists is circular. Your second premise (the Genesis account of creation is true) can only be true if god exists, so this is a nested double circular argument—congratulations, that’s the first one I’ve ever encountered!
| John R Nolan wrote: | Can science, without playing with the elements already provided, CREATE anything?
To create is to make out of nothing, so let science produce, from an absolute vacuum, a crocodile. |
Honestly John, when you make arguments like this, I sometimes wonder if you are poking fun. If science is unable to make something out of a vacuum what does that prove? NOTHING! Does it prove that there is a god or that god created something out of nothing NO it does not! It simply shows there are things that we do not understand, period!
This is known as the argument from ignorance: for example, we don’t know how crocodiles came to exist therefore god must have created them. When you break it down, this argument says, there is something I cannot explain so I’ll invent a second thing I cannot explain to explain the first thing I cannot explain. Duhh! This is NOT an explanation. This argument ends up with two things you cannot explain instead of one! BTW, it’s also a bad example, because we can explain how crocodiles came to exist.
| John R Nolan wrote: | | Argenta, my friend, it is not necessary for us to try to disprove your beliefs, true science should reveal to you the shakiness of the ground on which science is founded. |
If science does rest on shaky ground, A) you have not demonstrated it and B) it’s strange that it is the most successful method yet devised for understanding the universe by MILES!
You make another point but I’ll leave that to future post.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John,
Something entirely different.
You and others often talk about the need for faith, so I thought I’d write a story just for you and then three questions for you to answer. I’ll be interested to see what you have to say.
| Quote: | A long time ago, in a village in southern Bavaria, there lived an old but very powerful man. His name was Auguste. In spite of his age, he was tall and muscular, articulate and frighteningly intelligent. His neighbours were always afraid they would say something wrong and feel the lashing of his sharp tongue. So they stayed away and Auguste grew very lonely.
One day Auguste took a wife and a year later their son, Adam, was born. Auguste loved Adam so dearly he would weep to gaze upon his son in his crib. Auguste resolved that Adam must know love as he knew it. But how could he be CERTAIN his son loved him? Auguste agonised over the problem. It preoccupied him night and day.
One night Auguste woke up with a start. He had been dreaming and as he awoke everything became crystal clear. “My son must trust me, unconditionally. If he loves me as I love him he will trust me and believe everything I say no matter what other people tell him, no matter what he hears or sees. He must have faith in me and me alone”.
Auguste smiled in the darkened room. “Yes, that’s the answer. Total trust; that’s the proof I need.” But as he pondered his revelation, his smile faded. Maybe that was not such a good test after all. Most children obey their father and believe what their father says. Somehow he had to make it a more severe test for he could not bear the thought that his precious Adam would be just like all other boys. He would have to make it harder for Adam to trust him. But what if he made it too hard so his son would not trust him at all? He would have to promise a reward and threaten a punishment, a harsh punishment to make sure Adam did as he wanted.
Over the next few days Auguste worked out the details of his scheme. Auguste would leave the house and live in a hut in the forest past their most distant field. He would make sure that no trace of his ever having lived in the house remained. He would visit the house to talk to his wife only at night when Adam was fast asleep. He would give messages to his wife who would pass them on to his son. The proof of Adam’s love would be that Adam would believe Auguste was real but he would never see him and Adam would carry out Auguste’s commands and believe everything his mother relayed to him without question. That would be a real test of faith!
August explained the plan to his wife, “But we need a carrot and a stick to help him love me totally. You must constantly tell him that I will return on his 10th birthday. And then I will judge his behaviour. If he has been completely faithful to me, if he has always obeyed my commands and believed my words, I will move back to the house and we will live together for the rest of our lives both certain of our mutual unconditional love. But if he fails me, I will disown him. I will lock him in the cold, damp cellar alone with slop from the table to eat for the rest of his life.”
“That should help him to see the true path”, he chuckled. |
Now please consider these questions.
1. Would Auguste’s plan really show whether his son loved him?
2. Would you treat someone you loved in this way? If not why not?
3. Could you think of a better way to have a loving relationship with your son?
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I will quickly try to answer your questions however it is likely a waste of time, you are currently blinded by your own ego…
And your evidence is? |
Because you sound like me before I surrendered to the indwelling spirit. Takes one to know one. 
| Quote: | …and under the spell of the Luciferian atheist meme
And your evidence is? |
The Luciferian doctrine was one of "doubt" and "rejection" of the concept of the rule of the Father in the heart of mankind. Ironically, while Lucifer came to doubt the concept of a universal Father outside of time and space, he had no problem conceiving of himself as God of the local universe.
| Quote: | | I do not “insist” that the universe is strictly material but, as there is no evidence that anything spiritual exists, I will believe the universe is strictly material until evidence to the contrary surfaces. But why do you assume that an electromechanical machine cannot make value judgements I wonder? I don’t suppose you have any evidence for that assertion… ? |
"The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine."
| Quote: | God is love
Seriously, is this your definition of God Colter? |
No, he is also spirit as well as unity.
In absolute terms he is primacy, perfection, changelessness, eternity, universality, absoluteness, and infinity. Before the zero age, philosophically seeking, God was theoretically limited by all these attributes. At a theoretical time in the eternal past God emptied himself into the three persons of the paradise trinity.
| Quote: |
What is the “spirit birth”? |
It's difficult to standardize the experience with a precise definition, for me I had no hope and the I had hope.
The first spiritual influence that comes to bear upon a person life is the arrival of the "Thought Adjuster", on average at around the age of 5-8 years of age, when a child makes their first conscious moral (or amoral) choice. The thought adjuster is literally the presence of the spirit of the Father resident in the mind of man. The spirit's eternal purpose is to become one with man, to establish mans cooperation with the cosmic eventuation of God the supreme. God made us what we are that we might become what he is. We are becoming more like God by way of living experience.
Often in later life, as mans spiritual journey becomes waylaid by the things of this dark and confused world, there is a second spiritual birth where man rededicates his life purpose to seeking and doing the will of God.
"Unless you are born again, born of the spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of God." Nevertheless, to all who are honest of heart and sincere in faith, it remains eternally true: "Behold, I stand at the doors of men's hearts and knock, and if any man will open to me, I will come in and sup with him and will feed him with the bread of life; we shall be one in spirit and purpose, and so shall we ever be brethren in the long and fruitful service of the search for the Paradise Father." And so, whether few or many are to be saved altogether depends on whether few or many will heed the invitation: "I am the door, I am the new and living way, and whosoever wills may enter to embark upon the endless truth-search for eternal life."
In the rest of your questions like, "does he have an American accent, what region etc. I will say this:
God is a person, not a theory based on the historic facts of religion. To relize the presence of God is to perceive his personality. I cannot describe personality to you effectively enough for you to experience this personality. You will need to do that yourself should you ever sail out of the safe harbor of "prove it to me, then I will believe" and onto the high seas of true faith adventure.
| Quote: | | And should I assume that this trick works for all gods whether they exist or not? It’s obvious that many gods are believed in as devoutly as you believe in the Judeo-Christian god. Why do you think this process works just as well for gods that don’t exist as it does for gods that do exist? |
Regardless of the arrogance of religious sects like Christianity or Judaism, God is no respecter of races, religions, creeds etc. ALL mankind are Gods children. Anyone who sincerely seeks him will find him, in fact, if you are seeking God you have already found him.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Argenta wrote: | John,
Something entirely different.
You and others often talk about the need for faith, so I thought I’d write a story just for you and then three questions for you to answer. I’ll be interested to see what you have to say.
| Quote: | A long time ago, in a village in southern Bavaria, there lived an old but very powerful man. His name was Auguste. In spite of his age, he was tall and muscular, articulate and frighteningly intelligent. His neighbours were always afraid they would say something wrong and feel the lashing of his sharp tongue. So they stayed away and Auguste grew very lonely.
One day Auguste took a wife and a year later their son, Adam, was born. Auguste loved Adam so dearly he would weep to gaze upon his son in his crib. Auguste resolved that Adam must know love as he knew it. But how could he be CERTAIN his son loved him? Auguste agonised over the problem. It preoccupied him night and day.
One night Auguste woke up with a start. He had been dreaming and as he awoke everything became crystal clear. “My son must trust me, unconditionally. If he loves me as I love him he will trust me and believe everything I say no matter what other people tell him, no matter what he hears or sees. He must have faith in me and me alone”.
Auguste smiled in the darkened room. “Yes, that’s the answer. Total trust; that’s the proof I need.” But as he pondered his revelation, his smile faded. Maybe that was not such a good test after all. Most children obey their father and believe what their father says. Somehow he had to make it a more severe test for he could not bear the thought that his precious Adam would be just like all other boys. He would have to make it harder for Adam to trust him. But what if he made it too hard so his son would not trust him at all? He would have to promise a reward and threaten a punishment, a harsh punishment to make sure Adam did as he wanted.
Over the next few days Auguste worked out the details of his scheme. Auguste would leave the house and live in a hut in the forest past their most distant field. He would make sure that no trace of his ever having lived in the house remained. He would visit the house to talk to his wife only at night when Adam was fast asleep. He would give messages to his wife who would pass them on to his son. The proof of Adam’s love would be that Adam would believe Auguste was real but he would never see him and Adam would carry out Auguste’s commands and believe everything his mother relayed to him without question. That would be a real test of faith!
August explained the plan to his wife, “But we need a carrot and a stick to help him love me totally. You must constantly tell him that I will return on his 10th birthday. And then I will judge his behaviour. If he has been completely faithful to me, if he has always obeyed my commands and believed my words, I will move back to the house and we will live together for the rest of our lives both certain of our mutual unconditional love. But if he fails me, I will disown him. I will lock him in the cold, damp cellar alone with slop from the table to eat for the rest of his life.”
“That should help him to see the true path”, he chuckled. |
Now please consider these questions.
1. Would Auguste’s plan really show whether his son loved him?
2. Would you treat someone you loved in this way? If not why not?
3. Could you think of a better way to have a loving relationship with your son?
Love
Argenta |
A very interesting story, Argenta, and possibly you could tell me what it is based on? 
The questions also are double edged swords and I will try to provide answers. 
1 No, it is improbable that Auguste's plan will prove that his son loves him.
Let us consider though, whether it would be possible for Auguste to love, having been so alienated from this emotional state for such a long period of time? 
Looking at his self inflicted isolation, through his arrogance, strength, intellect, etc., we may deduce that Auguste has some rather deep psychological issues to confront.
What are the understandings Auguste has of love.
What is love?
Being unloved himself, (you say he took a wife, not that he loved her nor she him) it would appear that what Auguste is seeking may be a rather perverted concept of love, and therefore the criteria he is setting to be loved could be totally erroneous.
Further, how has Auguste proven to his son that he loves him?
Dictatorial domination, an environment with which I have particular experience, sadly does not engender love. It generates an unhealthy fear, it produces an unbalanced attitude to what you have been told is love and it may manifest in an equally perverse comprehension of what has been portrayed to yourself as love.
This, sadly, makes it very difficult for one who has experienced such an artificial emotional state to do anything but duplicate that emotional fraud in all relationships, including that with his father, mother and any other person one interacts with during life.
Even more relevant is the question of whether Adam will now comprehend that love is a gift, for which there is no charge, no liability and no reciprocal conditions nor expectations.
That Auguste was so immature that he had to adopt an hermetic life style, an horrific, ferocious infliction of emotional agony on his son, with some incomprehensible belief that this will irrefutably prove to Adam that he loves him is further demonstration of HUMAN insanity.
2 Would I treat my son thus? Probably not, though, looking at the steps taken in giving my son access to information relating to my personal beliefs, possibly, un-wittingly, he was required digest information, make decisions, when he was not sufficiently mature to comprehend nor evaluate their meaning and content.
Having been raised in an environment, basically an institution, one found that the concepts of love pushed by the media, the paperbacks, the love songs, etc., is a complete lie, a fallacy perpetrated by emotionally defunct adults, as a means to manipulate, control and punish, rather that a tool to encourage, uplift, strengthen and stabilize a childs gradual introduction to an incredibly hostile environment.
Thus, when one was confronted with what others called love he was totally incapable of accepting it, returning it, appreciating it or enjoying it.
Thus, my experience was perpetuated through my son, and it is only as we BOTH matured, grew in knowledge and FAITH, TRUST, that we were able to restore the relationship which should have been such a natural and fulfilling experience.
Sadly, being human, we are incapable of loving, in the manner which we should have been capable, had we all not experienced many negative social, emotional experiences.
3 Yes, in hindsight, a very handy tool we humans use to excuse and justify our previous failures, there are a number of steps which would have been taken differently.
One would have gone to all lengths to find out what love is.
One would have accepted that my son needed demonstration of love, positive conditioning, reassurance, and the opportunity to grow in an environment where he would learn that emotions are a faulty means by which to judge, a severely flawed basis on which to establish life.
The crux of this issue is the interpretation of LOVE. Without a clear understanding of love, outside of the artificial media portrayal of it as a mushy, sexually oriented emotion; a tool to be used as a weapon, a means to manipulate and dominate, suggests we are playing with a fire of which we are as savages.
True LOVE is beyond our human comprehension, which demonstrates we have no means by which to assess whether Auguste ever loved his son, and if not, how could he possibly expect his son to respond other than as he has experienced.
To apply this story in a Spiritual context is impossible, because we are spirits trapped in a deteriorating physical environment. We are born faulty, are incapable of loving, in the true context all of us long for, seek and, occassionally, some of us experience.
Was Auguste prepared to give his life to save his son from a life without love?
Hopefully, my friend, this will address your questions and they may again demonstrate our inability, as humans, to comprehend that which exists outside our sensual peripheries
GOD bless you Argenta, have a great Xmas
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello John and thank you for your full and frank reply. This is an occasion for celebration for this is, according to my recollection, the first time that you and I have agreed in almost all respects!
Let’s look at my questions and your replies:
| Argenta wrote: | | 1. Would Auguste’s plan really show whether his son loved him? |
Your answer was no. And I agree. The story shows that Auguste did have strong feelings of love for his son but, possibly because he had not ever experienced a loving relationship, Auguste did not understand what we all understand: giving love is the best way to receive love (though it’s not guaranteed, of course).
| Argenta wrote: | | 2. Would you treat someone you loved in this way? If not why not? |
Your answer was probably not and, if I understand the rest of your answer, you would not because if you do not demonstrate love to children they do not experience it and do not learn to give it themselves. I agree.
| Argenta wrote: | | 3. Could you think of a better way to have a loving relationship with your son? |
You say the crux of the issue…
| John R Nolan wrote: | | is the interpretation of LOVE. Without a clear understanding of love, outside of the artificial media portrayal of it as a mushy, sexually oriented emotion; a tool to be used as a weapon, a means to manipulate and dominate, suggests we are playing with a fire of which we are as savages. |
I’m not sure this really does answer the question but I think you’ve already answered it in your answers to questions 1 and 2. If you give abundant, unconditional love to your children, they are most likely to grow up with a true understanding of love and with great love for you. What you do NOT do is place obstacles in the way, or constantly test their love or, even worse, threaten to punish them if they do not love you. Auguste tried to do all these foolish things.
The story does not tell us the outcome but few of us would expect it to be a happy one.
| John R Nolan wrote: | | A very interesting story, Argenta, and possibly you could tell me what it is based on? |
Thank you John. I made the story up of course. I tried hard to base the character Auguste on the Judeo Christian god. You and others here prompted me to do so by your triumphant conclusion that god does not make it easy to believe in him—that he demands faith and faith would not be required if his existence was obvious. I cannot think of a more demented thing for a father or a god to do. As you point out, this would be the way someone who has not known love might behave and indeed we find that, according to Christian belief, god existed for an infinite amount of time alone with no-one to give love to or receive love from. So I hope this story, with all its imperfections, helps you to see that your god does not have the remotest understanding of what love is all about. And his plan to make humans love him is both unethical and flawed.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: GOD IS LOVE |
|
|
G'day Argenta, pleased to hear that I have all but agreed with you in so many areas. 
That may be considered in both a positive and negative connotation for we are approaching a specific scenario from two somewhat diverse positions.
That we have been close to agreement is good, but, on the fundamental differences, we are incapable of achieving agreeance as we are talking from two polarized locations.
1. That Auguste was sadly denied the experience of love through his social interaction is obviously a major impediment to his being able to express love to those closest to himself.
This though, does NOT prove that he would be incapable of experiencing love from a far more magnanamous level or standard.
The love we are here considering is an emotional expression of feelings, it is, as you are well aware, and have shown through your story, a specifically human emotion dependant on sociological, environmental and experiential boundaries.
Let us, for a moment, consider love, and its interpretation.
In the Greek we have a number of words expressing love, Agapao; Phileo; Eros; each denoting a differing form of love, Godly, brotherly, sensual, and some others but I can't find my notes on this and may get back to it at a later time
We need understand we are sadly lacking in ability to love in the ultimate, selfless manner which requires no response from the one who is the object of the love.
2. We only get back what we put in, in this physical world, and, without demonstrating love to our children, our spouse, our society and our environment, we would be rather foolish or naieve to expect that we will be given love in return.
When we talk in a Spiritual environment, to which, my friend, you appear vehemently opposed, (your prerogative), we are working in an dimension outside the sensually limited one in which we are now confined.
Many times I treated my son in ways he considered unloving, harsh, cruel, though, eventually, as he matured, he understood the reasons behind my denying him access to certain, dangerous things.
As a learner parent, we all make many mistakes, with, hopefully, not too damaging nor negative outcomes.
If our child survives, attains maturity, adulthood, and has a sound comprehension of his or her personal responsibilities to their society and environment, we may believe we have been a successful parent.
If a situation had arisen in my childrens growth where I had been required to give my life to save theirs, one would then have to consider how much or what type of love we had.
Yes, I agree that Auguste possibly did have a difficult task before him, in teaching his son to love, but, again, you did not state, in your story, that Auguste had NEVER experienced a truly loving situation nor environment, so, possibly he understood love at a much higher level, which was very difficult for those around him, including his son, to comprehend.
Interpretation is the root of the problem.
As with your story, personal interpretation of my favourite Story has also harshly damaged, denigrated, debased and perverted the underlying message.
3. If we are able to eliminate all negative influences, introduce our children into an environment in which they are not threatened by war, violence, hunger, sorrow, pain, anger, abandonment, divorce, death, etc.,
misunderstanding, social malaise of every form, then they may have a better chance to experience love, security, and all the positive emotions we would wish.
Because we live in a world where such is impossible, and daily becomes more threatening, aggressive, we would question whether the idillic environment which underlies the hoped for outcome of all our stories can be attained through use of techniques which have so far proven to be totally inadequate, and in fact are contributing to the increasing speed of our race to self destruction.
Why, Argenta, does America again reel in agony from a mass murder, suicide, perpetrated by a child? Does this not imply the society in which we live is insane?
America's main industries are production of weapons of mass destruction, immoral, perverse movies, magazines, clothes, mind destroying drugs, etc. as was once England's role
Do you suggest our GODLESS social structure is functional, a positive example to the world of successful social interaction?
What is your nation's divorce rate?
How many people are starving on your streets?
Is this not an example of how we all have raised our children, and is this a sound demonstration of love?
Do not take this personally, my friend, I love you and admit that my country, Australia, is right with America and yours as we are galloping into the realms of darkness and self termination, along with the rest of the world. (Remember the old adage, "All the way with L.B.J." and our idiotic political and religious leaders went for it like dogs to a *sometimes angry female* on heat.
We are at the climax of our time, and maybe we should admit that we got it all wrong and start looking for an alternative route, a new way to discover what LOVE is and then Auguste and his son may have a chance of a positive future and an opportunity to experience, express and rejoice in what LOVE really is.
My story says GOD IS LOVE.
Last edited by John R Nolan on Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: Re: GOD IS LOVE |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | G'day Argenta, pleased to hear that I have all but agreed with you in so many areas.
That may be considered in both a positive and negative connotation for we are approaching a specific scenario from two somewhat diverse positions.
That we have been close to agreement is good, but, on the fundamental differences, we are incapable of achieving agreeance as we are talking from two polarized locations.
1. That Auguste was sadly denied the experience of love through his social interaction is obviously a major impediment to his being able to express love to those closest to himself.
This though, does NOT prove that he would be incapable of experiencing love from a far more magnanamous level or standard.
The love we are here considering is an emotional expression of feelings, it is, as you are well aware, and have shown through your story, a specifically |
| | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
