This is why I think God exists.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

However, if you, as moderator, feel these interjections are unhelpful then I would welcome any guidance from you. Would you prefer that I refrained from poiinting out factual errors concerning mainstream Christian theology? Or would I be better off ignoring direct questions? It's your forum, so please just let me know.

Of course interjections such as the one I quoted are unhelpful. I respect your right to defend what you see as factual errors by addressing them directly (although unfortunately this thread has enough clutter).

You'll note two edited threads above which concerned equally unhelpful generalisations about the Christianity forum so be thankful at least your generalisations survived the knife.

Langerland

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Whoever did say this is making what has been called the "Two card game error". Quite simply, it is applying retrospect to something we have no business applying retrospect to.

I should have clarified who made this quote. It was Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer (so called father) of DNA. I am sure there are plenty references to this quote if you google.

Sam Vimes

Langerland wrote: »

I should have clarified who made this quote. It was Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer (so called father) of DNA. I am sure there are plenty references to this quote if you google.

What's your point?

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

1. Perfectly valid.

2. Generalistation, and the attempt to answer the question is futile, lets be honest.

3. More generalising but still valid question from the athiest, stroppy or not.

4. Nice, people who don't believe in God are in a madhouse.:rolleyes: I believe what you said to me in the Christian Forum was "a loss we will try to bear with fortitude". Likewise.

5. Your own christian forum seems very welcoming, what with homophobic threads abound which actually violate the charter but are let go.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

Ush1 wrote: »

5. Your own christian forum seems very welcoming, what with homophobic threads abound [...]

Ladies, could we avoid peeing over the fence?

Ush1

robindch wrote: »

Ladies, could we avoid trying to pee over the fence? It's undignified.

:pac:
No bother.

Zombrex

Inbetween the pissing contest Morbets point I think has been missed. He (she?) put it very well.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist

I think that is the best way I've heard it put so far.

krudler

you'd think that id god did actually exist, he would have gotten wind of all this petty bickering about his existence and actually showed up by now just to set things straight. either he doesnt exist or he's just sitting there, munching on popcorn chuckling away to himself at it all, which makes him a bit of a dick.

MagicMarker

Wicknight wrote: »

Inbetween the pissing contest Morbets point I think has been missed. He (she?) put it very well.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist

I think that is the best way I've heard it put so far.

I agree, it makes sense.

Turtwig

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space [[Our minds are constrained by much more than just time and space.] as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters [We actually can, but what's interesting to note is that when we are thinking outside these parameters we tend only to have intuitive explanations coming from supernatural phenomena. For example, the physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that it was easier for us to visual Angels than it was for us to visual a light wave that is accurately described by the laws of physics. So the thing to bear in mind when thinking outside of the conventional parameters is are you thinking in terms of reality or in terms of the brains convenience namely intuitive thinking that's usually supernatural in nature.] as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem. The problem is this:

Where did everything in existence come from? [The word "where" implies a source. If you are to take the literal beginning of time as understood from the Big Bang, then where you stand today is the source it merely expanded.] It must have come from something. [This "must" is an assumption. Do you have any grounds for this assumption? ]

Say it came from X1, then where did X1 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X1 came from X2, then where did X2 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X2 came from X3, then where did X3 come from? It must have come from something.


If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, [Indeed,but can one not argue that this Xn is merely the universe without a supernatural cause?]if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started. But we know that things exist, so there must have been some Xn which created itself, but now we have the problem that the notion of self-creation does not make sense for anything which is constrained by space and time like humans are constrained by space and time.

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God. [God, but why Him/Her/It, there could be a million other supernatural things that transcend time and space. More so, why does the thing that transcends time and space actually have to be a supernatural thing?]

Atheists often ask questions of religious people which would require religious people to fully understand God, it is totally unreasonable to expect any human being, absolutely constrained by time and space, to fully understand this God which transcends time and space. That's been said before, but it makes sense. [This last bit is very fuzzy. Religious people can understand various aspects of God. It just seems a little too convenient to me that religious people can easily describe any positive attribute of God without much difficulty. Yet when it comes to the difficult aspects, such as death, suffering, jumping logic gaps, the religious folk resort to the idea that finite beings cannot comprehend infinite beings. Religious people use finite approximations to understand the infinite God. To me, it seems they selectively choose these approximations to confirm beautiful aspects of their God. They also seem to selectively choose not to approximate aspects of that God which may lead to confusion about their faith. Atheists, in my view, like to approximate both the pros and cons of God.


I'm sure others have made similar arguments to this but this is how I explain my opinion.

I wasn't sure what would be the most convenient way to quote this post for you, but I think this is the best way. I've replied to your post directly above with bold font. I've also included the bold bits down here outside the quote again for your ease of use in quoting for replying.

Our minds are constrained by much more than just time and space.

We actually can, but what's interesting to note is that when we are thinking outside these parameters we tend only to have intuitive explanations coming from supernatural phenomena. For example, the physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that it was easier for us to visual Angels than it was for us to visual a light wave that is accurately described by the laws of physics. So the thing to bear in mind when thinking outside of the conventional parameters is are you thinking in terms of reality or in terms of the brains convenience namely intuitive thinking that's usually supernatural in nature.

The word "where" implies a source. If you are to take the literal beginning of time as understood from the Big Bang, then where you stand today is the source it merely expanded.

This "must" is an assumption. Do you have any grounds for this assumption?

Indeed,but can one not argue that this Xn is merely the universe without a supernatural cause?

God, but why Him/Her/It, there could be a million other supernatural things that transcend time and space. More so, why does the thing that transcends time and space actually have to be a supernatural thing?

This last bit is very fuzzy. Religious people can understand various aspects of God. It just seems a little too convenient to me that religious people can easily describe any positive attribute of God without much difficulty. Yet when it comes to the difficult aspects, such as death, suffering, jumping logic gaps, the religious folk resort to the idea that finite beings cannot comprehend infinite beings. Religious people use finite approximations to understand the infinite God. To me, it seems they selectively choose these approximations to confirm beautiful aspects of their God. They also seem to selectively choose not to approximate aspects of that God which may lead to confusion about their faith. Atheists, in my view, like to approximate both the pros and cons of God.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Inbetween the pissing contest Morbets point I think has been missed. He (she?) put it very well.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist

I think that is the best way I've heard it put so far.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I agree, it makes sense.

He's just copying something I said last August :P

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Technically the universe has always existed because the word always is a time related word. There was never a time when the universe did not exist

Langerland

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point?

ooo handbags!!:eek: Relax....nozzferrahhtoo only said "whoever made this point...." I was merely clarifying.....

Wow....so highly strung...:)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Would you prefer that I refrained from poiinting out factual errors concerning mainstream Christian theology?

Mainstream Christian theology - what's that?

candy-gal1

Im probably going to get slated for this, but imho nothing can be proven wrong (it can be proven right, yes) until were dead and it doesnt really matter then tbh.
I understand that evolution is the obvious and more believable thing to believe in, you have to have an awful lot of blind faith to believe about the man in the sky story but its also true that it is near to impossable to prove something doesnt exist either. its up to the individual i think.




How about someone coming up with a live forever antidote? :rolleyes: Now that would be truly great. thats just me though.

Galvasean

candy-gal1 wrote: »

its also true that it is near to impossable to prove something doesnt exist either. its up to the individual i think.

And that is why the burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim that something happened.
"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

philologos

candy-gal1 wrote: »

How about someone coming up with a live forever antidote? :rolleyes: Now that would be truly great. thats just me though.

Living, forever, here? That would be absolutely awful! :pac:

It's by and large a good thing by my book, that I will die. That I won't have to live here forever.

candy-gal1

Jakkass wrote: »

Living, forever, here? That would be absolutely awful! :pac:

Is it just for me then?!
Why would you not want that? just curious, as i would love it!!!

philologos

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Is it just for me then?!
Why would you not want that? just curious, as i would love it!!!

There are quite a number of reasons why I wouldn't want that!

1) To live for infinity years with a decayed body / uncurable disease would be absolutely awful.
2) To live with the pains and frustrations of this world (mostly inflicted by other people) is tolerable for a time, but it is not tolerable forever.
3) As a Christian, I believe there is much more than this, and I would like to meet my Maker if you will.

I don't think anyone, who really considers what living forever on earth means will come to the conclusion that they would love it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mainstream Christian theology - what's that?

"Mainstream Christian Theology" is shorthand for "Those core beliefs that have been held in common as expressed in mutually-held creeds by over 95% of professing Christians over the last 1600 years or more, while recognising that on other, more minor, issues which are not referred to in said mutually-held creeds, those same Christians might disagree with each other."

Those of us who are in the communication business find the former shorthand version makes for more effective communication and aids comprehension and understanding. However, those with more of a tendency towards pedantry or anal retention are free to use the latter, and more verbose, version if they wish.

candy-gal1

Okay point taken there, but isnt all that better than being put in the ground and thats it ( in case there isnt anything after this at all). Tbh id rather be here forever and look after myself as much as possible if that was ever an option.

philologos

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Okay point taken there, but isnt all that better than being put in the ground and thats it (in case there isnt anything after this at all).

I don't know if it is to be honest. The frustrations of never knowing the answers to the key questions of life, would drive people with a philosophical mind batty. I'd rather know that my life was going to end.

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Tbh id rather be here forever and look after myself as much as possible if that was ever an option.

Would you rather just live here forever, if it was the case that there was a God, and there was a hereafter, and there was a possibility that not only you, but others could find it?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with living here for my entire lifespan, but I believe that my true home is elsewhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

My 'interjections' into this thread were limited to the following:

Didnt you say something about leaving the room? Oh wait... didnt I predict this was a load of wash?

PDN wrote: »

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

Where by the way? IF you scroll back to your posts you will find it is essentially made up of two parts. The first is you answering a question with a question, which is neither polite nor in my experience rarely helpful. You then went on to tell people they "havent a clue" which is also unhelpful in anyway and is a stretch to call polite.

So not only did you prove yourself wrong by not sticking to point 4 of your own vast generalisation... 2 never happened either.

nozzferrahhtoo

Langerland wrote: »

I should have clarified who made this quote. It was Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer (so called father) of DNA. I am sure there are plenty references to this quote if you google.

It is irrelevant who made it, and in your first post you only said you THINK you knew who wrote it. Hence the reason I did not mention the name and started with "whoever did say this..."

Or put another way, what I wrote would be the same if he said it, Gay Byrne said it, Einstein said it, Darwin said it, Moses said it, or the little leprechaun living on my forehead said it. Its still hogwash for the reasons I laid out.

MagicMarker

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Okay point taken there, but isnt all that better than being put in the ground and thats it ( in case there isnt anything after this at all). Tbh id rather be here forever and look after myself as much as possible if that was ever an option.

I feel the same, I would rather be alive than dead. I think most would feel that way.

When you're dead though, you won't know it!

candy-gal1

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if it is to be honest. The frustrations of never knowing the answers to the key questions of life, would drive people with a philosophical mind batty. I'd rather know that my life was going to end.



Would you rather just live here forever, if it was the case that there was a God, and there was a hereafter, and there was a possibility that not only you, but others could find it?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with living here for my entire lifespan, but I believe that my true home is elsewhere.

Well obviously if there was black and white proof that there was something after this then great! But more than likely we will never know either way until its too late so I would take something to make me live forever if there was such a thing. (that may never work either though tbh)

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Didnt you say something about leaving the room? Oh wait... didnt I predict this was a load of wash?

I'm avoiding generalisations as per the mods instructions, so I'm going to pretend that I'm all surprised that a poster would substitute snide personal comments for discussion.

Wow! I didn't see that coming!

I just can't help being a helpful kind of chap who responds to comments directed his way instead of ignoring them. Sorry if that offends you.

candy-gal1

MagicMarker wrote: »

I feel the same, I would rather be alive than dead. I think most would feel that way.

When you're dead though, you won't know it!

Yes!! exactly, i mean when your gone it doesnt matter what you believed or didnt believe in. So the best option is living forever imho.

nozzferrahhtoo

candy-gal1 wrote: »

imho nothing can be proven wrong (it can be proven right, yes)

Actually in science it is the other way around. Nothing in science has ever been proven right, it just stands up to tests, but those tests are used to prove things wrong all the time.

All of science is built on this. We make a falsifiable proposition, we find evidence to support that proposition, and then the rest of the scientific community test the bejaysus out of it to find out if the proposition holds.

As such nothing in science is proven right... ever... what we consider "true" in science are concepts that have stood up to testing and are so far unfalsified.

Take for example the speed of light. No one has "proven" that this is constant in a standard vacuum everywhere, at all times, in all places. However we have tested this and tested this and every test shows that it is. We treat it as "true" therefore... though who knows it might be different somewhere else we havent checked yet.

We prove things wrong all the time, we never prove things right. Prove to me, for example, the sun WILL rise tomorrow... or the next day... or the next day. Right now your only way to do so is to wait and see, while referring to past tests.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I'm avoiding generalisations as per the mods instructions, so I'm going to pretend that I'm all surprised that a poster would substitute snide personal comments for discussion.

Still havent left the room then? Do you think maybe going back and editing your generalised post around point 4 would be wise then? Given that you have proven it wrong yourself, it is only the right thing to do.

You might reconsider point 2 too in the light of the part of my comment above that you did not reply to.

sensibleken

use logic please wrote: »

You are right, our logical minds are constrained, but we have to work with the logic we have in order to gain understanding. Using my logic as well as I could, I came to my conclusion. Of course, the human mind can always be wrong on matters beyond its comprehension.

Im dont agree. Our minds are not constrained by logic. We have imagination, and its that part of the brain that invented god in my opinion. It is also why you made the giant leap of Xn created itself. Thats a massive leap and a premise that is not based on anything.

You have not shown that Xn created itself