We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

a reply to: TheArrow

What is God? I'll do you one better Jesus of Nazareth was God. There I told who and what God is. He is an eternal, perfect being that is transcendent but imminent within this world. There is evidence of a rational mind behind the external universe, and God is that transcendent mind.

The system (universe) is the Master's (God's) creation.

When talking about world views this actually means a lot on a philosophical level. The idea of a rational mind behind the universe means we should expect to see evidence of such in reality. As I have said your merely presenting a logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. I cannot imagine the concept of God therefore it cannot be. That is a logical fallacy no way around it.

What is the number 4? The number 4 in and of itself is meaningless unless it is modifying something.

On the contrary the number 4 is an abstract concept that has meaning. I don't need to apply the number 4 to anything in order to understand the concept of 4.

God has to modify something? Why is that so? I see no reason for a rational mind to have to modify something in order to exist.

a reply to: Expat888

Life is short .. its also the most valuable thing a person has .. its not to be wasted or thrown away lightly .. theres already enough misery in the world .. dont need to add more to it .. better to do what can to make it better while here and help those who see that truly need help ..
[/quote

Life is short and the most valuable thing a person has. Friend those are subjective opinions without God. Who are you to tell me life is not something to be wasted? What standard are you going to appeal to in order to produce evidence for that belief? If you truly believe there is no God then what evidence do you have that Human life has intrinsic value.

If human life has no intrinsic value then ultimately if you choose a life of compassion and love BRAVO or if you choose a life of murder and rape BRAVO there is ultimately no difference in you world view.

Growing as a human being? What does that mean?
Why should I care that I helped someone who needed it?

You are talking of all these things as though they are something that I should care for, but your not telling me why living for compassion joy and love are better than living for say murder theft and rape .

a reply to: Expat888

Life is short .. its also the most valuable thing a person has .. its not to be wasted or thrown away lightly .. theres already enough misery in the world .. dont need to add more to it .. better to do what can to make it better while here and help those who see that truly need help ..
[/quote

Life is short and the most valuable thing a person has. Friend those are subjective opinions without God. Who are you to tell me life is not something to be wasted? What standard are you going to appeal to in order to produce evidence for that belief? If you truly believe there is no God then what evidence do you have that Human life has intrinsic value.

If human life has no intrinsic value then ultimately if you choose a life of compassion and love BRAVO or if you choose a life of murder and rape BRAVO there is ultimately no difference in you world view.

Growing as a human being? What does that mean?
Why should I care that I helped someone who needed it?

You are talking of all these things as though they are something that I should care for, but your not telling me why living for compassion joy and love are better than living for say murder theft and rape .

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

What is God? I'll do you one better Jesus of Nazareth was God. There I told who and what God is. He is an eternal, perfect being that is transcendent but imminent within this world. There is evidence of a rational mind behind the external universe, and God is that transcendent mind.

So, your idea of an eternal, perfect being is reduced to a mortal form, described by various, conflicting accounts and this is supposed to answer the question of what a god is? Not to sound condescending, but... it's not very moving.

When talking about world views this actually means a lot on a philosophical level. The idea of a rational mind behind the universe means we should expect to see evidence of such in reality. As I have said your merely presenting a logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity. I cannot imagine the concept of God therefore it cannot be. That is a logical fallacy no way around it.

No. Not that I cannot imagine the concept, you can't imagine the concept. If you could imagine the concept, you could describe it to me in a meaningful and precise way. You can't even define what your god is, and you expect someone else to give evidence that it doesn't exist?

On the contrary the number 4 is an abstract concept that has meaning. I don't need to apply the number 4 to anything in order to understand the concept of 4.

God has to modify something? Why is that so? I see no reason for a rational mind to have to modify something in order to exist.

I thought that was the whole point. If God isn't modifying something, then what makes it the "creator" of anything? It doesn't.

a reply to: TheArrow

So, your idea of an eternal, perfect being is reduced to a mortal form, described by various, conflicting accounts

Ok apparently you missed the fact that I said He was imminent. Meaning he is involved with the creation. He is eternal and transcendent as well. Now you said you wanted to know what God was. I told you God is Jesus Christ. That is as precise as I can get. Now you called the Gospels conflicting accounts. You completely incorrect. The Gospels are internally consistent. Do you get different perspectives on the same scenarios? Yes. Do you get hard contradictions? No.

No. Not that I cannot imagine the concept, you can't imagine the concept. If you could imagine the concept, you could describe it to me in a meaningful and precise way.

Now your just getting offensive. Who are you to tell me what concepts I can and cannot fathom. In order to tell me that you would have to know more about myself than I do. Guess what you don't. So why don't you act a little more respectful. You willingly admit to being unable to fathom the concept of God, I do not.

Again you keep saying that these words have no meaning but that is obviously not true based on my personal experiences with people. If I ask a person if they believe in God I don't have to explain to that person what I mean by God when i ask that question normally people know what I mean because the word has a meaning just like the color red has a meaning. This conversation is a waste of time as it is not intellectually appealing at all...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow

Ok apparently you missed the fact that I said He was imminent. Meaning he is involved with the creation. He is eternal and transcendent as well. Now you said you wanted to know what God was. I told you God is Jesus Christ. That is as precise as I can get. Now you called the Gospels conflicting accounts. You completely incorrect. The Gospels are internally consistent. Do you get different perspectives on the same scenarios? Yes. Do you get hard contradictions? No.

Like I said, your conflicted book isn't all that compelling. If that's what you are using to define your god, then there isn't a point in "disproving" it, as the framework for disproving the existence of Jesus has already been laid, and you aren't interested in hearing it.

Now your just getting offensive. Who are you to tell me what concepts I can and cannot fathom. In order to tell me that you would have to know more about myself than I do. Guess what you don't. So why don't you act a little more respectful. You willingly admit to being unable to fathom the concept of God, I do not.

So then, you can fathom the concept of god, but you are merely unwilling to share what that concept is. Doesn't sound like you are all that interested in any sort of rational discourse at all, frankly.

Again you keep saying that these words have no meaning but that is obviously not true based on my personal experiences with people. If I ask a person if they believe in God I don't have to explain to that person what I mean by God when i ask that question normally people know what I mean because the word has a meaning just like the color red has a meaning. This conversation is a waste of time as it is not intellectually appealing at all...

If the word has a meaning, why can't you define it in a way that isn't circular?

a reply to: TheArrow

Like I said, your conflicted book isn't all that compelling. If that's what you are using to define your god, then there isn't a point in "disproving" it, as the framework for disproving the existence of Jesus has already been laid, and you aren't interested in hearing it.

And I hear speculation and no facts. If you are seriously suggesting Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person well then I don't really think we have much more to talk about until you have done a little more historical research.

So then, you can fathom the concept of god, but you are merely unwilling to share what that concept is. Doesn't sound like you are all that interested in any sort of rational discourse at all, frankly.

I have already given you the concept of God I hold to. An eternal, perfect, transcendent, rational mind that is also imminent. Just because you don't want to accept that as a philosophical concept doesn't mean it is not one lol. I mean I could just say well the laws of logic cannot be rationally justified therefore they aren't actual philosophical concepts and I have no need for them, but that would just be silly. In no way is the concept of God I have presented circular.

I haven't defined God in a way that is circular at all.

I still don't see how the Simulator and Simulation analogy is circular. If I say God created the universe that is not circular. You start with God and move to a universe. If I said the universe created the universe that would be circular. Or if I said God exist because God exist that would be circular. Or if I said God is God because he is God. That would be circular but at no point in time have I done anything of that nature. I have said God is an eternal, perfect, transcendent, rational mind that is also imminent with his creation. Thats not circular at all.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I told you God is Jesus Christ.

Its blind faith to believe that Jesus walked on water and resurrected. Where in reality have you seen that happen?

Centuries ago, people used to create mythical people with superpowers. An example is Hercules. Although I believe Jesus existed, he was given superpowers. I have never seen anyone else walk on water.

You can tell me that Jesus was god therefore he could do that. Well Hercules was strong because he was the son of god, but im not going to believe in Hercules.

Achilles was also the son of god and fought in the Troyan war. But no one really believes that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

All of the questions in the OP are already listed. They are just as sweet and short as Is there a supreme being do I really need to rephrase? Go read the OP, as I am starting to wonder if you read it at all. There is a list of questions in the OP.

I said it depends on the definition of faith. Your premise is based on everyone having faith in some world view so as I tried telling you I don't have faith as you define it in such which means your premise has been falsified.

Maybe you should have said "almost" everyone has faith. As for your questions they would be dependent on your premise holding up to scrutiny which it hasn't.

Well simply put if you have no evidence for or against and I produce one piece of evidence for the existence of a God wouldn't it automatically become more reliable as you have no evidence to the contrary.

Evidence for something existing is always a good indicator but can your evidence hold up to scrutiny? Is there strong enough evidence to have faith as you define 100% confidence or trust.

Lets look at your list.

"Anthropic principle"
That is a philosophical consideration = not evidence for god.

"Big Bang Cosmology"

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Sorry but you struck out again there is nothing there about a sky god.

"The rational human mind"
what about it can you be more vague?

"DNA"
again can you be more vague? So far not so good for evidence of a god.

"The historical resurrection of Christ"
Ah the story that must be true because the book it is in says it is true.Cool story bro.

"The existence of Moral Absolutes"
If God is powerful and benevolent, however, then He would not create us to have a flawed sense of morality. If he tried to create us perfectly but failed, then he is not powerful. But if he created us as he wished but we do not have a perfect moral sense than he is not benevolent. For it was within his power to create creatures that will commit no evil, and instead he wrought great evil into the world. Seems to me moral absolutes would be evidence a biblically defined creator doesn't exist.

"Life doesn't come from Nonlife in my observational experience"
So your saying that because you have never observed abiogenesis or such is evidence for god....hmmmm

Remember this?

And lets clarify here that I am asking for evidence that God does not exist not proof that God does exist

So by using your measure the fact that I have never seen or witnessed a god in my obsevable experience must be adequite evidence one does not exist.

Check mate.

So what I am hearing is that ultimately all of your faith is in yourself and your minds ability to interpret sensory data. This is a faith that you are telling me is reliable.

Not by your definition of faith which I thought I was clear on. I think therefore I am is the only thing I am 100% certain of. That would be the only thing your definition of faith would hold to.

What evidence do you have that living this way will bring you to the best objective understanding of reality?

Experience.

Now you have made a faith claim here. "I cannot trust my perception of reality." I respect your intellectual consistency. If God is not real you are absolutely right, we cannot trust our own perception. Now is that world view consistent with how you live your life? Do you distrust your own perception of reality on a daily basis?

Funny that you ask. Yes I do distrust my perception on a daily basis you see I am blind in one eye so when I drive or even go to pick something up I can't trust what I perceive because I lack depth perception.

I personally do not. So that world view would contradict the experiences i've observed.

Fair enough. But, you're observable experience are yours and yours alone. Unless they are repeatable and falsifiable by the rest of us then they can't be evidence worthy of consideration to myself.

a reply to: danielsil18

Although I believe Jesus existed, he was given superpowers. I have never seen anyone else walk on water.

You should get a laugh out of this.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow
And I hear speculation and no facts. If you are seriously suggesting Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person well then I don't really think we have much more to talk about until you have done a little more historical research.

You are talking about a matter of your faith in a claim that is not falsifiable and you are accusing me of speculation and no facts? I can't prove your "god" doesn't exist because one cannot prove non existence.

www.logicallyfallacious.com...

I have already given you the concept of God I hold to. An eternal, perfect, transcendent, rational mind that is also imminent.

That is simply nonsense and doesn't actuallymean anything. You might at well say, "I believe that colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It doesn't mean anything real, and adds nothing to the discussion.

Just because you don't want to accept that as a philosophical concept doesn't mean it is not one lol.

And just because you assert that it is a philosophical concept, doesn't mean make it so. Much like your concept of god, this is merely your idea, not weighted or meaningful within the context of the discussion.

I mean I could just say well the laws of logic cannot be rationally justified therefore they aren't actual philosophical concepts and I have no need for them, but that would just be silly.

That's what you are actually saying when you talk about the existence of god in non meaningful ways.

In no way is the concept of God I have presented circular.

I haven't defined God in a way that is circular at all.

Why do you believe Jesus was "God" Because it says so in the Bible? Why does the bible matter? Because it was the word of God?

That's circular.

I still don't see how the Simulator and Simulation analogy is circular. If I say God created the universe that is not circular. You start with God and move to a universe. If I said the universe created the universe that would be circular. Or if I said God exist because God exist that would be circular. Or if I said God is God because he is God. That would be circular but at no point in time have I done anything of that nature. I have said God is an eternal, perfect, transcendent, rational mind that is also imminent with his creation. Thats not circular at all.

You are saying God is God because he is God.

The Master of the simulation is the master because he created the Simulation of which he is the Master.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Grimpachi

IMO life without a god, afterlife...yada yada means life has more meaning it is the most meaningful thing. Life.

Ok but with out God I could just as easily say I think its more meaningful to end life and try and bring about the destruction of all that is as quick as possible and objectively you cannot tell me otherwise. Therefore ultimately life has no objective meaning but only a false subjective illusion of our mind.

I think they call people who would try to do something like that sociopaths or psychopaths they generally lack empathy. Imo they have some screws loose.

I have often wondered if religion was the tool that have reigned in those types. They lack the ability to empathise with others so they may only stay in line for fear of retribution.

If you feel that without a god you may become destructive please by all means keep your god belief also please see a psychiatrist they have some medicines that may help you as well.

a reply to: danielsil18

Its blind faith to believe that Jesus walked on water and resurrected. Where in reality have you seen that happen?

Do you have some historical evidence suggesting Jesus wasn't resurrected ?

Because Matthew Mark Luke and John are all 1st century documents written as historical narrative . Achilles is from Homer's Iliad which written in the form of epic poetry. Hercules likewise comes from a literary style similar to poetry not historical narrative. Historical fiction as literary style didn't exist in the 1st century so no my belief that Jesus walked on water and was resurrected is based on historical evidence.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I said it depends on the definition of faith. Your premise is based on everyone having faith in some world view so as I tried telling you I don't have faith as you define it in such which means your premise has been falsified. Maybe you should have said "almost" everyone has faith. As for your questions they would be dependent on your premise holding up to scrutiny which it hasn't.

You have faith in your mother, I am willing to bet you dont chemically analyze the food you get from her or other people when you get it. I am willing to be you have faith that love exist.

Now those questions in the OP have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have faith. They might show that you have faith, but in order to answer them you dont have define faith at all. So here's the questions again....maybe youll answer the fourth time

1.) God: Is there a Supreme Being?
If it exist, is it personal or not?
If it doesn't, is matter and energy all that exist?
2.)Universe: Where did the universe come from?
What sustains the uniform nature of the universe?
Is there a spiritual part of reality?
3.)Humans: Do humans have intrinsic value?
Does life have a purpose?
4.)Moral order: Who makes the rules?
Do some rules apply to everyone?

Answer those and I will respond to the rest of this post afterwork. Remember friend I am not trying to convince you of anything but just talk about your beliefs and my beliefs.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: danielsil18

Its blind faith to believe that Jesus walked on water and resurrected. Where in reality have you seen that happen?

Do you have some historical evidence suggesting Jesus wasn't resurrected ?

Because Matthew Mark Luke and John are all 1st century documents written as historical narrative

Thats where your problem starts. You take the bible as "historical evidence".

In the bible you have:

A snake that could speak, people who could live more than 900 years, giants, world flood, all animals in a wooden ship, Jonah living inside a big fish for 3 days, Samson losing his strength after losing his hair, a talking donkey, the splitting of the sea, walking on water, etc, etc.

My advice is to come back to reality because nothing like that happens in planet Earth, only in myths and science fiction books.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

1.) God: Is there a Supreme Being?
If it exist, is it personal or not?
If it doesn't, is matter and energy all that exist?
2.)Universe: Where did the universe come from?
What sustains the uniform nature of the universe?
Is there a spiritual part of reality?
3.)Humans: Do humans have intrinsic value?
Does life have a purpose?
4.)Moral order: Who makes the rules?
Do some rules apply to everyone?

I want to answer them.

1) I dont know
I dont believe in one.
Is it all matter and energy? I dont know.
2) I dont know.
My opinion is mostly chemical reactions and physics.
Spiritual part of reality? I dont know. I dont believe in it.
3) I dont like to put any "value" on humans.
Life having a purpose? I think we all give our lives purposes.
4) What rules?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have faith in your mother, I am willing to bet you dont chemically analyze the food you get from her or other people when you get it.

You don't know my mother. She has dementia it is to a point now that we unplugged the stove.

I am willing to be you have faith that love exist.

Not 100% as you define faith. I have had some crap relationships before.

1.) God: Is there a Supreme Being?

Not as far as I can tell.

If it doesn't, is matter and energy all that exist?

As far as I can tell.

2.)Universe: Where did the universe come from?

No one knows for sure.

What sustains the uniform nature of the universe?

What uniformity? Do you mean how entire galaxies are colliding, stars are going supernova, black holes are swallowing things up, rogue asteroids are spiraling about just to name a few? I don't think anyone has ever implied uniform in that way to me before..

Is there a spiritual part of reality?

I haven't witnessed it so I don't know.

3.)Humans: Do humans have intrinsic value?

When you refer to intrinsic value are you defining it as belonging to the basic nature of someone or something being essential or are you contrasting it with instrumental value or extrinsic value. Depending on how you are defining intrinsic value changes my answer greatly so I will pass on that until you have the opportunity to clarify.

4.)4.)Moral order: Who makes the rules?

The community or culture.

Do some rules apply to everyone?

In some communities or cultures possibly but cross cultures worldwide no.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your questions are meaningless.They are manipulations to attempt to propagate your religious agenda as your posts in this thread prove.This has been your consistent tactic in all of your posts.You are not interested in truth reality of the creator God you are only interested in propagating “your” bent reality of religion on others.

You prove your agenda by the way you act in a condescending aggressive manner(then accusing others of doing it).Even when you write “friend” the clench of your jaw shows.You can’t even phrase a simple question without condescension.It’s the reason you are arguing with a few people in circles and few will ever respond to your vehemence.You have proven nothing because you have said nothing.

I was not attempting to express my perception I was only stating what the facts are and denying your ignorance of the truth of reality.

a reply to: danielsil18

A snake that could speak, people who could live more than 900 years, giants, world flood, all animals in a wooden ship, Jonah living inside a big fish for 3 days, Samson losing his strength after losing his hair, a talking donkey, the splitting of the sea, walking on water, etc, etc.

The rejection of miracle claims in history is a philosophical bias. Lets be honest though I haven't asked you to look at the entire bible. I haven't asked you to take the Bible as the word of God. I have merely pointed out that Jesus Christ according to history was resurrected from the dead, and i'll make a new point which is he claimed to be God in human form . So either Jesus was lying, or he was telling the truth. This is a perfect example of why I asked people to answer those questions and you did and I appreciate it cause lets me know you a little more.

1) I dont know I dont believe in one. Is it all matter and energy? I dont know.
2) I dont know. My opinion is mostly chemical reactions and physics.
Spiritual part of reality? I dont know. I dont believe in it.
3) I dont like to put any "value" on humans.
Life having a purpose? I think we all give our lives purposes.
4) What rules?

These answers show your world view. The only one I am missing is question 4 which was a question about morals. Who ultimately determines right and wrong ?

Now if you look at you answer to these questions and then look at the way you interpret historical data you'll notice you reject miracle claims in history based on your world view(no god exist). That would be called philosophical bias not evidence or good history. If you reject miracle claims in history then doesn't that show complete faith in the idea that there is no God?

Please don't get me wrong your being consistent with your world view when you reject miracle claims and I respect that.

Let me give you an analogy for looking for physical scientific evidence of God.

A man builds a car. A girl buys the car, and begins driving home. On the way home she goes over a bridge. She turns the car left and goes smashing off the bridge.

In the above scenario, we have agents(the girl and the man) and we have mechanisms(the car there are obviously more but lets focus on the car). Science deals in the realm of mechanisms, not agents. As scientist we could study the axle of the wheels, the internal combustion engine, the material of the seat, ect...

No matter how hard you and I study those mechanisms science will never tell us why that girl turned left and drove off the bridge. Likewise the mechanisms of a car will give us no physical evidence of the man who built it.

In the same way God is an agent to the universe. We can see the mechanisms he's created, but why would you expect the creation to have a physical piece of evidence of the creator.

Point 3 I would like to discuss as well. I personally don't believe any human could live that out. Each person attaches value to their life. They rank their life higher than others at times and lower than others at time or equal to others at times. If humans have no value, do you have a problem with someone who thinks its fun to gas jews? If so, why?

You also said that life's purpose is subjective. So from that perspective if someones purpose in life is to be a thief and date-rapist BRAVO or if someones purpose in life is to be like Mother Teresa BRAVO. Again for me that contradicts my observational experience here with humans in reality.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You don't know my mother. She has dementia it is to a point now that we unplugged the stove.

And if she gave you food would you chemically analyze it? What about the last time you picked up fast food did you chemically analyze it? Actually have you ever chemically analyze your fast food, or any food given to you for that matter?

Not 100% as you define faith. I have had some crap relationships before.

I didn't ask if you had a faith that love never failed, but rather that love exist at all.

Where did the universe come from?

No one knows for sure.

Ok but there are only two options. Either from intelligence or Cosmic Accident.

What uniformity? Do you mean how entire galaxies are colliding, stars are going supernova, black holes are swallowing things up, rogue asteroids are spiraling about just to name a few? I don't think anyone has ever implied uniform in that way to me before..

By uniform nature of the universe I mean things like the gravitational constant, electric constant, Planck constant. If the world is a random accident what sustains the uniformity we find all the way back to the first Planck time?

I was indeed using the ethical definition of intrinsic value.

Do People have an inborn degree of importance?

Who makes the rules?

The community or culture.

Now according to this world view you would have to view Martin luther king, Gandhi, Harriet Tubman and anyone else who went against the cultural norm as moral monsters. Do you see understand why I say that?

In some communities or cultures possibly but cross cultures worldwide no.

My moral experience personally contradicts that. People have moral experiences just like we have physical experiences. When I jump off a building and break my leg I have physical experience. When someone steals my wallet likewise I have a moral experience. At no point time would someone stealing my wallet produce a moral experience in which I felt that stealing was only subjectively wrong .