Very interesting...

Mani, that parable is a double edged sword. Nobody can seriously and rationally think they are dead, because the process of thinking alone is a confirmation that your body is alive. It is the man's prerogative to reject this logic and continue to believe he is dead, but it is quite silly to do so. This parable seems to be explaining how faith works at best.

In regards to life from non life. The term abiogenesis is the scientific word used for the hypothesis of this very process. Though not tested thoroughly enough to confirm or deny that abiogenesis is indeed possible, evidence points towards it being possible. Assuming it is possible, it is a severe blow against the theory of "God doing it", isn't it? Time will tell.

My presuppositions are not baseless, and most definitely not absolute, whereas yours more or less are. My presuppositions are things that can be tested and observed. Yours are from a book. In order to accept your argument, I have to put faith in a viewpoint that is entirely impossible to prove, and only "manifests in life" if I want it to in the first place. That opens up the flood gates to subconscious distortions. Faith is a substitution for rationality at this point. The thing is, if the man will refuse to believe a contrary when evidence supporting so is presented, that means the man is going on faith. At this stage though, it becomes a nasty "cling-to" mechanism that denies reality. It is like a defense mechanism of tricking yourself to continue to believe your presupposition is valid in the face of contradictory evidence. By not even taking the other argument into consideration, the faithful goes on the baseless presupposition that his religion is the one reality of this world. When you do that without a shred of valid evidence to prove your point, you can't expect to be taken seriously. I can make wild claims that I have a pack of rainbow colored diety lions in my garage that run the world by throwing darts at an ethereal, faith powered dart board, but who is going to believe me? Probably only the ones that presupposed rainbow colored diety lions existed in the first place. Why should religion be exempt from rational evidence? Something like "Because man cannot comprehend God's workings" or "God is outside of human rationality" and the like are quaint answers, but equally baseless assumptions.

Faith is nice, but not when it blocks rationality. It is great to have faith that your grandpa will pull through his heart surgery, or that the plane you are on won't come crashing down in flames, and it can be convincing when your grandpa does indeed pull through the heart surgery, or you make it to your destination safely, but that is a confirmation bias again. When you begin to believe that it is faith that is affecting the outcome itself, things get wacky.

Having faith in something by no means brings it any closer to reality.

 

He's going for a double!

 

Woah...triple post post post .....

 

I got busy with some friends this evening Kai, but I really want to carry on our debate! Can I get another day to answer? hehe!

I am doing yard work first thing in the morning, but I should have some time tomorrow to respond. Thanks for being patient!

 

woah...

all i read was god...something something something really long post...atheist..something something something really long post...and..again...or vice versa...

i figure its all the same rigamarole where nothing gets really settled or accepted...why does it get brought up all the time? errr..maybe not all the time...but still....

/me pricks the dead horse

 

I debate this stuff because it is intellectually intriguing to me. It may seem like a dead horse being beaten to spectators, but I feel like I learn a great deal hearing religious persons' views.

 

Chuk, you never answered my question! Where did mankind come from? Evolution isn't an answer since it hasn't been proven and it demands abiogenesis (a discredited theory)!

I will get back to responding to Kai - I just have a few things in the yard to do this morning!

 

Logic has no reason for being consistent or for being a universal constant unless there is a logical and eternally constant Being who is sustaining it.

My belief in God has nothing to do with the fact that He maintains the universe. He doesn't do it "somehow", He does it by the the word of His power. It is a fact because His Word (the Bible) states this (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17).

(By the way, remember, we are dealing with presuppositions here so you must understand my presupposition is that God exists and has revealed Himself inerrantly and infallibly through His inspired Bible.)

The existence of absolute truth means that there is an absolute Being who has established it and maintains it and to whom all of creation is responsible.

The world would not exist without absolute truth. Life has no meaning without it.

I agree with you - God either exists or He doesn't. My axiom is that He does, and your is that He does not.

You are assuming He is unknown to me. He is not unknown because He has revealed Himself in the Bible. Mine is not a blind faith - it is a reasoned faith based upon the truth as found in the Bible.

Just because mankind is ignorant of certain scientific facts, doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Remember, these scientific facts were in existence before mankind was - it is certainly accepted that science is logical and uniform and is constant! But why should it be? I submit because we have a logical God who sustains it.

Mankind shouldn't take gray areas and slather God in them like bondo! Mankind should simply accept them as areas to which he is ignorant and seek to understand them using operational scientific methods. But who is to say these operational scientific methods will have the same results as we run experiments, etc? We expect them to function logically because even though many reject God, they still rely upon His sustaining power to uphold the laws of nature and science so that our results are consistent.

Yes! It is wrong and that is my point exactly! All mankind will recognize that killing is wrong. But why do we recognize that? Because mankind has knowledge of God. Some may suppress it, but it is still there and mankind incorrectly credits this knowledge of right and wrong to himself.

I agree with you. Cheating is bad. But why is it bad? Because there is an objective truth that says it is. This truth is transcendent thus must be established and maintained by a Being greater than mankind and outside of all laws of nature and logic. The Bible says this Being is God (Genesis 1:1)

Awesome! So, has this Gerichol revealed itself to you or to the world somehow? The God of the universe has! He has revealed Himself in His inerrant and infallible Word. A book written over a 2000 year period by over 40 authors without a single contradiction and with plenty of authenticating fulfilled prophecy. The Bible tells us that God loves us and sent His Son to die on a cross for the sin of the world. Did Gerichol do this?

Yes, your conscience is in fact influenced by this suppressed knowledge of God, Kai. But I know you and you are a moral and good guy. You enjoy fair competition and you dislike worng-doers. You are still free to choose how you will conduct yourself, but why be upset if you choose to do that which you know to be right?

God says: John 1:3

Not really. I thing we would agree that if the laws of logic and nature suddenly were no longer in force, we would all cease to exist. But God does exist and does consistently uphold these laws--and I trust Him to continue doing just that--so I am happy.

I wouldn't be able to react because everything would cease to exist (Hebrews 1:3) so this question is moot.

See the above answer--everything would cease to exist.

No, it is important to the whole world that God exists. Even though mankind rejects God and suppresses the knowledge of Him (Romans 1:18-32) he still conducts himself - for the most part - in a morally correct manner. If mankind were to ever completely abandon the knowledge of God, chaos would erupt and the world would slide into a relativistic quagmire of individualistic morality which would allow those who so wish to kill or cheat with self-righteous impunity and not one person could claim it as wrong.

But even still, in the end, God would be the judge of those who rejected His Son. Those who have accepted the sacrificial death of His Son by faith will not face this jdgment. Why not? Because sin is eternal and requires an eternal sacrifice. The only Person who could provide an eternal sacrifice is Jesus Christ - Emmanuel, God with us.

 

I am with Rane! Ya'll are wasting too much game time here that will not end happily.

 

That is entirely an assumption on your part. Who says logic has no reason for being consistent? Isn't the fact that it is consistent proof that there is a reason behind it? Isn't it possible that this reason is not in fact "God"?

I don't take the bible as fact. The bible was written and influenced by man under the guise of a god. Its teachings were hand picked by the heads of the church. That is, they had the power to make the story play out the way they wanted it to. Back then church leaders were usually in direct touch with God, or so they said. Of course because we are dealing with supernatural stuff here, they can imagine anything they want about god and boom, fact. Well, fact in their eyes at least. Hardly a reliable source. If Christians make it a point to notice god's presence everywhere, won't that undoubtedly lead to misinterpretations? Oh yeah, God never leads you wrong, and exists by default. You win. If only it was that easy though.

Your mind isn't exempt from faulty interpretation, nor was Jesus', or anybody for that matter. You can't take the assumption "Everything is because God is", and then use that as logic to confirm God. It's a destructive, circular cycle that will only plunge the believer deeper and deeper into the lie they themselves are creating.

What do you base this presupposition on?

But this is again an assumption. Is there proof that there is a being that calls the shots in this universe? That he decides stuff will fall down instead of up? Nope, not a shred. I agree there are forces in this universe we have yet to come to an understanding about, and indeed they all contribute to why the universe works the way it does, but I don't believe those forces have an awareness, consciousness, or "creator" in the conscious sense. I believe (not religously) that man attributed a complete understanding of the universe and its workings to "God", and eventually personified it and incorporated it into human life, and what we see "God" portrayed as today. I think God was a much better idea when he was hypothetical.

I think the term "absolute truth" is mankind's attempt at assigning life a more complex goal than survival and reproduction. In the end, our "absolute truth" is the same as a cat's "absolute truth".

I'm completely open to the idea of a God existing. Thus far in the history of religion, there has not been one single shred of valid evidence uncovered to back any of the countless religous beliefs. You'd think with all the miracles flying around in the days of old, some kind of provable assertion could be made. Funny that miracles virtually stopped happening as people learned more about the world. Sure the occasional cripple regaining the ability to walk comes up now and then, but you can thank medical science for that, or maybe one of those weird "healing hour" shows you see, not miracles. But hey, God could show up tomorrow and I'd have no choice but to change my position. Until then, your axiom is as baseless an assertion as the tooth fairy.

Would you ever be open to the idea that God does not exist? If not, why?

I suppose we can agree to disagree here.

Assertion made, insert evidence *here*. Just because mankind is ignorant of certain scientific facts, doesn't mean God does exist either. It is foolish to acknowledge either side of that argument because the factors involved are superfluous to the question at hand.

Science is constant because it is the method man uses to explain the constants observed in the universe. Its findings have no bearing on if a God exists or not. It is simply man's way of coming to a better understanding of the physical universe. It is only because science has revealed many contradictions stated by the bible, the infallible word of God that it is a helpful tool in the argument against God. However Christians can interpret the bible however they want, it can be the infallible when it needs to be, a metaphor when it needs to be, and a distortion by man when it needs to be as well. The bible would be a scary debate tool indeed if the way it is used didn't invalidate itself as whatever the person wants it to be. My super hero has super bible-resistant +10 pants anyway though, so I'm immune to it.

Agreed.

What happens when you hold a piece of steel under a flame? It gets hot. By repeating this result you will find that every time you apply a flame to steel, the steel gets hot. Why? Because the energy from the flame gets trapped in the steel due to the much larger concentration of atoms contained in the steel. By knowing these facts we can conclude that steel gets hot when a flame is applied. Period. It doesn't matter if it is underwater, in space, in a big pool of jello, the steel will heat up. You are saying god is the factor that decides this. Fair enough, but to be taken seriously you need to prove it. Good luck.

There's nothing wrong with the act of killing. Living things have been doing it as a method of survival since the dawn of time. If we were still monkeys, I'm sure we'd be indifferent to killing, so long as it isn't us or our immediate social group that is being killed. It is a social norm to believe that killing is bad among humans because we've developed a much more intricate view of life than any other creatures. We've self-assigned higher meanings to life than survival and fornication, so to kill robs an individual of reaching those higher meanings, and being able to think "what if that was me" helps humans as a whole develop the idea that killing is bad. We essentially make life less vulnerable by adapting our morals. Take wolves for example, do you think they see killing as morally wrong? No, wolves are indifferent to killing. Wolves kill daily, it's part of their survival. It used to be part of our survival too. Back then I doubt everyone shared the moral that killing is wrong. I see no reason why a God has to influence this, it is entirely a social trait picked up naturally by living in this society.

The bible says a lot of things. Cheating is viewed as bad because it can potentially have negative impacts on society. It also circumvents measures put in place to insure one has the skills necessary for the task. That is, testing. A society full of doctors that cheated their way through med school couldn't possibly be a good thing could it? Or a factory full of engineers that cheated through their engineering exams building our cars? I'm not seeing where God fits into this moral decision of society.

Without a single contradiction? Authenticating fulfilled prophecy? Are we talking about the same bible? The bible is riddled with contradictions and prophecy is another word for "probable shot in the dark". I'm not aware of any of these fulfilled prophecies, care to name a few?

The bible tells a tale of the son of God dying on the cross for our sins. History tells the tale of a Jewish man repackaging and remarketing Judaism under the guise of Christianity. Of course the bible is going to glorify its own story. It was crucial in Christianity's infancy to gain supporters, do you honestly think the prosthletizers of the faith at the time would tell the story without made up glorification?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. However, by encompassing us both in your assumption, you have imposed your faith on me. The idea of Christianity alone imposes itself on everybody it comes near, and that's why I can get touchy when Xians come in with their bigot attitude of "Even though you don't agree with me, I'm still right, you just don't realize it." but can you blame me? It's fine that we don't agree, what takes it a step too far is that Christians simply can't understand why others don't agree with them, because they hold the key to the universe afterall. Christianity is the perfect embodiment of ignorant bigotry, that is, its followers don't realize they are being bigoted, the worst kind of bigotry. I'll ask nicely that you please refrain from imposing your faith on me. We all know where these arguments have gone in the past, so lets just avoid it, agreed?

Matter does not just cease to exist. I didn't say anything about the laws of logic and nature, I said God. Of course your worldview sees God as the author of those laws which I must reiterate, is largely a baseless assumption. You have no proof that God is the author, you just assume he is based on what your religion says he is and can do, which is ironically, anything and everything.

So you won't even entertain the question? Is it forbidden to even hypothetically explore yourself without a God?

We've been down this road. I doubt we're going to make any progress here.

Perhaps, but the real kicker here is that it would be the formally theistic people that plunge it into chaos. They would be the ones with the individualistic morality if they were to learn God was an illusion. The atheistic people would be unaffected.

In regards to self-righteous impunity:

Seems like a good definition of self-righteous impunity to me. This supports my assertion that if anybody is going to spiral the world into chaos, it would be those theists.

Tell me, how is the Christian mindset not an individualistic morality in itself? Because you don't make the decisions yourself?

 

I've always had a problem more with atheist's views then I've had with a person of faith.

Why?

Because the person of faith truly believes in what they are saying...whereas the atheist just tries to discredit and constantly tell you they are wrong. Dunno...always has irked me.

...and before you atheist's get all crazy...I've been on both sides of the fence and have realized that a person must live their days as best they can...not so much in fear of repercussions...but as to who they truly are.

 

I'm sorry you have been so mislead as to how atheists view things. We (I say we loosely. We, afterall, are individuals) aren't trying to disprove anything. It is impossible to prove a negative anyway. There's no way I can reasonably conclude there is no god. I can however, reasonably conclude that the odds of a god's existence are unlikely. I am indifferent to the concept of religion. Maybe a God exists, maybe not. I say probably not. That is the bare bones mindset of an atheist. A-theistic, the opposite of theistic, without the belief of gods. We aren't out to convert theistic people into atheists, one should only become atheist through their own thoughts, not the thoughts preached by another. It is the fact that religious people won't let us be that gets us worked up. You can say you respect our position but do you really? Or is our position just a quaint rambling in the face of THE TRUTH (tm)? We've already submitted our view, that is, rejection of diety figures, and even that simple view is seldomnly respected, even that is fine. It is when the theist takes the belief we have already clearly rejected and ram it down our throats even more that we start to take offense. "God influences your life no matter if you believe it or not" is offensive to me, not because maybe there is a god, and maybe he does influence my life, but because the believer is once again force feeding me the biblical jargon I opted out of when I stated "I do not believe that stuff".

 

some pass the joint...this is starting to hurt...

oh wait...wrong thread

 

The last thing I want this to become is a push to shove thread like the last one... I'll be the first to cease participation if it goes that way.