It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Understanding a Christian World View Pt One.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Perhaps you should re-read the title of this thread: "Understanding a Christian World View". The 'agent' is obviously the christian god.


Yes I currently think that to be the case, but I will be the first to say that Part 1 has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is a very generic way of thinking about God. You could place any being with agency in the place of God and the ideas drawn would still be coherent and would still answer all the same questions.




it is illogical to make the claim to begin with because coming to a conclusion that "there's a god" and then looking for answers to support that conclusion is based on a false premise, and is illogical at it's core.


Except no one who is a Christian attempts to prove the existence on an external agent by appealing to the mechanics of its creation. To explain the auto mechanic you don't study the car.




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes I currently think that to be the case, but I will be the first to say that Part 1 has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.


haha


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
It is a very generic way of thinking about God.


Yes, I completely agree. However, the OP tried to be as inclusive as possible to all of Christianities denominations. So a generic way of thinking about god seems to be required in order to fulfill that goal


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You could place any being with agency in the place of God and the ideas drawn would still be coherent and would still answer all the same questions.


I agree. In fact, I believe I've mentioned almost those exact words to the OP as well.



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Except no one who is a Christian attempts to prove the existence on an external agent by appealing to the mechanics of its creation. To explain the auto mechanic you don't study the car.


Why not? If we were to find alien technology, we would certainly study it to try to understand the aliens themselves better.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Yes, I completely agree. However, the OP tried to be as inclusive as possible to all of Christianities denominations. So a generic way of thinking about god seems to be required in order to fulfill that goal


That wasn't even in my mind. I follow the logic. That is what we come out with. You cannot leap to the idea of a particular God without first understanding the need for some type of God.




Why not? If we were to find alien technology, we would certainly study it to try to understand the aliens themselves better.


I think you are going to have to defend that claim. The only thing you would achieve by studying an unknown piece of technology is information about the mechanics of the device. If an alien made a car and we had never seen a car how could the mechanics of the internal combustion engine give us any information about that alien....or the mechanics that cause the axel the turn. The only thing we could assume that because it is designed we would attribute it to an agent of some type.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
That wasn't even in my mind. I follow the logic. That is what we come out with. You cannot leap to the idea of a particular God without first understanding the need for some type of God.


Sure, I can agree that that statement is logical.

However, I don't find there to be any logic in a claim that 'there needs to be a god'



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think you are going to have to defend that claim.


I'm not sure why. We do this all the time: Criminal Investigation, Archeology, Paleontology. Really, just about anything that involves the study of any particular 'thing' left by a person or animal, be it tools, criminal evidence, or remains can be used to understand that thing or animal in general.

I don't see how that wouldn't apply to a god as well? After all, if a god exists, and if it created the universe and/or specific phenomena within our universe, then it has interacted with it in some shape or form, therefore it itself, it's essence, or it's power existed/exists in the universe and in space-time at some point. If what is left as a result of this 'god' still exists, or that there are remnants of it, then we would at the very least have evidence that a god exists at all.

I'm not saying that we can understand every single detail through what something left behind, but we still something to at least show that 'whatever it is' existed and did 'something'.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I haven't made my points properly, and so far no one has said anything of any true substance. Most of it has just been one misrepresentation after the next


As has been pointed out by Ghost, and others, the basis of your argument, a "deity with agency" that approached the void and created the universe magically.....is an illogical premise from the get go. Your premise lacks "true substance", and is based on your biased belief system.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




As has been pointed out by Ghost, and others, the basis of your argument, a "deity with agency" that approached the void and created the universe magically.....is an illogical premise from the get go


Why does it have to be called magic just because we don't understand the mechanics involved? Nothing about the idea of a deity creating the universe is illogical. Just because you say something is illogical or logical doesn't make it so. Logic is not subjective.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




Sure, I can agree that that statement is logical. However, I don't find there to be any logic in a claim that 'there needs to be a god'


Moral Argument, Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, TAG.

All of these arguments argue for the need of some type of agent at the beginning of the universe. These arguments have never been refuted, and the only way out is to say well I could just put the flying spaghetti monster in there with his noodly appendages and the argument still works, but at that point you've already conceded the idea the arguments seek to prove....




I'm not sure why. We do this all the time: Criminal Investigation, Archeology, Paleontology. Really, just about anything that involves the study of any particular 'thing' left by a person or animal, be it tools, criminal evidence, or remains can be used to understand that thing or animal in general.


Investigating a crime doesn't give you evidence of a person's existence. It gives you evidence of a crime. Sure we could use the information to make a guess about the person's habits. Archaeology simply gives you evidence for the existence of those structures at that time. Attributing those structures to agents is something we do based on the build of those structures. The same way we would with the car. It doesn't tell you if the person liked the color blue or why they chose to commit the crime.. Those are all assumptions that have no empirical evidence. Fossils are a false comparison. Finding the bones of an animal isn't the same as finding the dam of a beaver and attributing it to natural forces or an agent.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Nothing about the idea of a deity creating the universe is illogical.


Yes it is. Just saying that something or someone just always existed, before the universe (an illogical deference to time, in itself), created the universe because of "agency", without having to explain where the deity came from, or its agency, is illogical.

Just because you can't understand that, doesn't make it a logical premise.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Okay so if you get that was the purpose of the OP why are you treating my words as if I was presenting some kind of fundamentalist argument?


I don't treat your position as some kind of fundamentalist argument. That is your perception of me arguing my point. And my point is: Creativity as such does not neccessarily have to be an entity. It can be merely capacity, or a foundation, just like the ocean is not considered as an entity but as the foundation, the capacity for life to exist in it. Know what I mean?




I said when they are thinking about these things often times they cannot disconnect from their own presuppositions about the world in order to process something in a different state of mind.


And I think that, to be unable to "disconnect from their own presuppositions about the world" is what you're doing also.




No idea what you mean when you say species truth. When I was using the word reality in the OP I was thinking of objective reality. My definition of that would be the state in which things actually exist.


When I talk about reality as species-truth it means this: Every species here on earth perceives reality different. No species has the one and only true real take on what reality is. And to say that reality is "the state in which things actually exist" is considered as arrogant and ignorant by me. What it implies is: How dolphins, dogs, cats or elephants perceive reality is less real than how you perceive it. How do you know you, as a member of the human species, are right?

What you do is trying to make assumptions about how the universe came about without even trying to understand the most basic stuff. You can speak and understand animal-language already? No? But you think you know how the universe came into existence? Well...that's what I call arrogance and ignorance.




If someone could present a framework of thinking that was just as logically coherent as my own then obviously I would have to compare them both very carefully.


No matter how often you use the term "logically coherent" , it does not make your argument actually so. Just like it does not make me a billionare, in the eyes of most people, to claim I possess a lot of pearls, metal, beats, feathers and stones. (I'm a jewelry-maker). A billonare would not say that possessing those things makes me a billionare too. Right?




Honestly though no one has even come close.


And I consider you as intellectually dishonest by being unable to say that you actually don't know how the universe came into existence. Nobody knows it for sure and those who have theories that are valid do admit that they merely have a theory. You don't do that. You claim that your argument is "logically coherent" while I just don't think it is.




So what is logically coherent is up for discussion, and discussions dealing with spiritual realms are all about what is logically coherent but there are is no logic those discussions? You statements are contradictory.


Okay...okay...I breathe in and breathe out...and....I'm cool, calm and collected again....

NO! Spiritual/religious discussions don't have anything to do with logic at all! Just the opposite. And that is not a problem in my eyes. But to claim to be able to "logically coherent" deduce how the universe came about, that is illogical by the mere attempt to claim its realm (being a religious topic) has anything to do with logic, companiero. It just hasn't. Religion and logic are NOT in the same category. Religion naturally deals in analogies, metaphores, allegories and such. Poety is not logical either. And religion is also not. That is my point.






edit on 31-3-2016 by Willingly because: typos



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Moral Argument, Ontological Argument, Cosmological Argument, TAG.


I don't know what TAG means.

The morality argument is just ridiculous. If only morals came from a god and correctly worshiping that god then we would expect there to be chaos everywhere that the correct god and the correct religion didn't exist. Which we don't.

We also find that Theocracies tend to be the most barbaric, war ridden, sexist, racist, areas in the world, and find that the vast majority, and I mean far above 95% of prison inmates are religious/Theistic.

It's quite clear that inserting 'God' in one's life has precisely the opposite effect of morality.

We would also expect the animal kingdom to be chaotic. Yet we see social species existing without constant anti-social traits destroying themselves.

There is no Ontological argument isn't a need at all, it's a supposition.

And the cosmological argument is just a place to move goal posts:

~ "God created the planet", we now know how planets form.
~ "God created the solar system", we now know how the solar system forms.
~ "God created the stars", we now know how stars form
~ "God created the Universe" We now know how the universe was formed

Next goal post is "God created the singularity". It just keeps getting pushed back upon further discoveries, knowledge, and education.

I don't see a "Need for god" anywhere in these examples. They simply stem from ignorance on the subject (not meaning for that to be insulting)


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
All of these arguments argue for the need of some type of agent at the beginning of the universe.


Why?

What do morals have to do with the beginning of the universe?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
These arguments have never been refuted


Read above, and yes they have. You are simply not looking, or you're ignoring the arguments.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
and the only way out is to say well I could just put the flying spaghetti monster in there with his noodly appendages and the argument still works, but at that point you've already conceded the idea the arguments seek to prove....


That's not conceding to the argument, that's showing how it's illogical to name the god that 'dun it'.



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Investigating a crime doesn't give you evidence of a person's existence.


Uh, yes... it does... A crime can't be committed without a person, and the evidence found can very well lead you to the existence of a person. That's how crimes are solved, after all...


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Sure we could use the information to make a guess about the person's habits.


No. You can tell the weight of an individual by their footprints. You can tell their DNA from fluids, hair, and otherwise. You can tell a person did it by video and photographic evidence. You can tell the height of the individual from the direction the bullet came from or by blood spatter from the victim. You can tell their actions and the event itself through the evidence available.

You can tell a lot more than just "habits".


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Archaeology simply gives you evidence for the existence of those structures at that time.


No... It gives you a detailed history of the culture of that time, the type of people that lived there, the type of jobs they did, the wealth of those individuals, the type of lifestyle they lived, so on and so forth. It all shows the existence of those people.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
It doesn't tell you if the person liked the color blue or why they chose to commit the crime.


Yes actually, it can very well show you why they chose to commit the crime...


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Fossils are a false comparison. Finding the bones of an animal isn't the same as finding the dam of a beaver and attributing it to natural forces or an agent.


Who said paleontology was all about bones? We can't understand a lot about a species's habits by their resting place, their egg laying place, their feces, and more.

You have a very narrow understanding of these fields, apparently.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




An Entity is simply something that exist as itself.


The ocean also "exists as itself" and is not considered as being an entity by most reasonable people.




If your world view is Christian then one of the basic assumptions upon which it relies is the universe being contingent, or dependent, some type of Entity that caused it to come into existence.


I'm not a christian. At least not in your sampradaya (religious order).




It then also has assumptions about that entity. The one I mentioned in the OP is agency. The Christian world view would rely on the assumption that the creative entity has agency, or the capacity to act in a given environment.


If that makes you happy and more content, you are free to consider the ocean as an entity. I just don't do that. For me it's not neccessary to do so. For me its enough to consider the ocean a foundation in which life can come about and exist. But maybe the water-god, or Neptun is the one who is responsible for life-form in the ocean. Okay, I don't have a problem with anybody who thinks that that is the case, but to call it "logically coherent" I would refuse.




To answer your second question, no I cannot currently think of a way in which the universe could come into existence without a cause.


Like I said before in my last response to you, I don't think that being concerned with "first causes" and how the universe came about is what has number one priority. There are many many other problems that need to be solved first. THAT is my point also.




If it is contingent whatever it is dependent upon could be viewed as an Entity. Ghost for example, does not think this entity had agency but he does think the entity was a singularity. We both however agree that their needs to be some form of causality.


To me what you and also Ghost assume as being the case, that there need to be "some form of causality", is totally beside the point. It's like as if you are in a burning house and I come to rescue you, but you prefer to get to know how it came about that your house is on fire. I tell you, "doesn't matter, dude! Just get out now!" But you say, "nah...I need to know who set it on fire first!"

That is how logical coherent it is, in my eyes, regarding what you deal in here, ServantOfTheLamb.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Out of curiosity, and not trying to start a fight. Do you try to consider others world views? OR Do you want us to just take your personal beliefs into account, and not expect the reciprocal courtesy?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




Yes it is. Just saying that something or someone just always existed, before the universe (an illogical deference to time, in itself), created the universe because of "agency", without having to explain where the deity came from, or its agency, is illogical. Just because you can't understand that, doesn't make it a logical premise


Again you don't understand why the question is not logically valid. To come from something means you are a contingent being . If you are the creator of spacetime then logically you are timeless. That is not complex logic. Its very simple if you can't grasp it then I don't really think we can have a conversation because our idea of reason is not the same yours is simply saying hears what you said and thats illogical. Your not giving any reasons as to why it is illogical your not making an argument your just rejecting mine.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




If you are the creator of spacetime then logically you are timeless.


Why does a creator have to be a "being", and not a "force"?

Just because you propose a "being" that exists outside of "space and time" must be "The Creator", that doesn't necessarily follow that, outside of your own imagination, your proposed being isn't also a contingent being.

You have just filled the holes in you own understanding with a "God did it" concept, believing that solves the problem. It doesn't. That's just a lazy man's answer. If one being/creator exists outside of "space and time" then it follows that an infinite number of beings/creators exist outside "space and time." Then "creation" becomes chaos. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

Are there dimensions, within the universe, that exist outside the realm of "space and time"? Where does consciousness exist? Where do intangible concepts exist? Where do Ideas come from? Could they exist in a parallel dimension/universe? Perhaps the essence/force that animates matter is a natural and contingent manifestation that arises naturally from parallel dimensions, which we have yet to understand.


edit on 2-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Willingly




I don't treat your position as some kind of fundamentalist argument. That is your perception of me arguing my point. And my point is: Creativity as such does not neccessarily have to be an entity. It can be merely capacity, or a foundation, just like the ocean is not considered as an entity but as the foundation, the capacity for life to exist in it. Know what I mean?


Define foundation.




When I talk about reality as species-truth it means this: Every species here on earth perceives reality different. No species has the one and only true real take on what reality is.



You have made a truth claim while defining truth. This would be known as begging the question.




What it implies is: How dolphins, dogs, cats or elephants perceive reality is less real than how you perceive it. How do you know you, as a member of the human species, are right?


It in no way implies that. It implies that reality is the state in which actually exist independent of all living organisms perceptions. That is what reality is.




What you do is trying to make assumptions about how the universe came about without even trying to understand the most basic stuff. You can speak and understand animal-language already? No? But you think you know how the universe came into existence? Well...that's what I call arrogance and ignorance.


Is this real? Speak and understand animals? What does that have to do with our ability to trace the universe backwards? My assumptions what ever the universe is contingent upon are based off the science of today.




No matter how often you use the term "logically coherent" , it does not make your argument actually so. Just like it does not make me a billionare, in the eyes of most people, to claim I possess a lot of pearls, metal, beats, feathers and stones. (I'm a jewelry-maker). A billonare would not say that possessing those things makes me a billionare too. Right?


If your going to claim my position is incoherent please point out where it does not cohere.




And I consider you as intellectually dishonest by being unable to say that you actually don't know how the universe came into existence. Nobody knows it for sure and those who have theories that are valid do admit that they merely have a theory. You don't do that. You claim that your argument is "logically coherent" while I just don't think it is.


And if you'd go read one of my previous post you'd see that I agreed with him that just because my position is logically coherent doesn't make it true. You don't think my position is true. I don't think you think it is incoherent. Is english your first language ?




Okay...okay...I breathe in and breathe out...and....I'm cool, calm and collected again.... NO! Spiritual/religious discussions don't have anything to do with logic at all! Just the opposite. And that is not a problem in my eyes. But to claim to be able to "logically coherent" deduce how the universe came about, that is illogical by the mere attempt to claim its realm (being a religious topic) has anything to do with logic, companiero. It just hasn't. Religion and logic are NOT in the same category. Religion naturally deals in analogies, metaphores, allegories and such. Poety is not logical either. And religion is also not. That is my point.


Just because you assert that logic is not involved doesn't make it so. I don't like the word religion because Christianity is supposed to be about a relationship not rituals. Just because the bible is writing and uses literary devices doesn't show that logic has no place in a spiritual discussion. If you want to abandon the way we determine what is true when you talk about the spiritual realm by all means that is within your right but that does not mean every has to adhere to that way of thinking.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




I don't know what TAG means.


Transcendental argument for God.




The morality argument is just ridiculous. If only morals came from a god and correctly worshiping that god then we would expect there to be chaos everywhere that the correct god and the correct religion didn't exist. Which we don't.


It is quite clear you have never taken the time to actually understand the argument. You have already seem to conveniently forget that our conversation topic was that these arguments argue for the existence a of a generic Creator of the Universe it doesn't get you to the idea of a specific God. It simply gets you to the idea of a creator whose essence(another philosophy term which is the attribute or set of attributes that make something what it is) is ethical standard inherent to all humans regardless of belief.




We also find that Theocracies tend to be the most barbaric, war ridden, sexist, racist, areas in the world, and find that the vast majority, and I mean far above 95% of prison inmates are religious/Theistic.


Jesus came for the sick.




It's quite clear that inserting 'God' in one's life has precisely the opposite effect of morality.


Again you this shows that you don't really understand the argument.




We would also expect the animal kingdom to be chaotic. Yet we see social species existing without constant anti-social traits destroying themselves.


Why would that imply a chaotic animal kingdom?




There is no Ontological argument isn't a need at all, it's a supposition


Wrong. Alvin Plantinga's modal version is great and he uses formal logic. You can't just read the premises of the ontological argument and think you have refuted it. You need to read how God is defined, and how they define great.




And the cosmological argument is just a place to move goal posts: ~ "God created the planet", we now know how planets form. ~ "God created the solar system", we now know how the solar system forms. ~ "God created the stars", we now know how stars form ~ "God created the Universe" We now know how the universe was formed Next goal post is "God created the singularity". It just keeps getting pushed back upon further discoveries, knowledge, and education. I don't see a "Need for god" anywhere in these examples. They simply stem from ignorance on the subject (not meaning for that to be insulting)



Now I am going to do the same thing you did, but this time I am going to do it with human creations.

- Man created the automobile, we know how the automobile works.
-Man created the watch, we know how the watch works
-Man created the computer, we know how the computer works.

Just because we are capable of describing the physical processes the formation of these things went thru does not show that their was not an agent. The cosmological argument doesn't move the goal post it looks at the processes we know and draws the conclusion that an agent was involved in those processes based on the improbable nature of the fundamental constants like electromagnetism and the force of gravity. We look at the genetic processes in the body and draw the conclusion that it was designed based on the way it exchanges information. This is the exact same process we would take in determining what created the computer.

God created the singularity doesn't even make any sense. i have already explained why you are incorrect in your assessment of what the singularity actually is.




Why? What do morals have to do with the beginning of the universe?


The supreme ethical standard in this world is love. The moral argument argues that God is the essence of love, and that regardless of location in the universe there is an objective Good and Evil in any moral situation.




That's not conceding to the argument, that's showing how it's illogical to name the god that 'dun it'.


It most definitely is. The argument seeks to prove the need for an external agent that has certain attributes. Simply saying I could call the agent whatever I want doesn't do anything to the argument it just shows that you can semantically call it whatever you like.




Uh, yes... it does... A crime can't be committed without a person, and the evidence found can very well lead you to the existence of a person. That's how crimes are solved, after all...


If you have no physical evidence of that can identify that person at the crime, the crime itself doesn't provide evidence for the existence of a particular agent was what I was getting at.




No. You can tell the weight of an individual by their footprints. You can tell their DNA from fluids, hair, and otherwise. You can tell a person did it by video and photographic evidence. You can tell the height of the individual from the direction the bullet came from or by blood spatter from the victim. You can tell their actions and the event itself through the evidence available. You can tell a lot more than just "habits"


Yea but if you take it into that realm it becomes a false comparison to what we were discussing. As that becomes physical evidence of that person rather than us studying their creation . I was trying to make crime fit into that category but if we are going that in detail it wouldn't work.




No... It gives you a detailed history of the culture of that time, the type of people that lived there, the type of jobs they did, the wealth of those individuals, the type of lifestyle they lived, so on and so forth. It all shows the existence of those people.


Now notice that this whole time you have been doing the same thing I do when I argue for God. You are explaining the existence of physical objects with a top-down causation, or moving from complex to simple. But you apply that to people because we have found people among those ruins or whatever. The scenario we were orignally talking about was observing something like a car for the first time without the knowledge that people created cars. Again it just isn't really the same type of scenario.




Yes actually, it can very well show you why they chose to commit the crime..


Again I was looking in the context that we had no information of the person available at the crime. I suppose you could come up with some exceptions on that one though.




Yes actually, it can very well show you why they chose to commit the crime..


Not necessarily but I thought you were using them in the same way I used the car scenario.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I am more than willing to listen to someone elses ideas.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




The supreme ethical standard in this world is love. The moral argument argues that God is the essence of love, and that regardless of location in the universe there is an objective Good and Evil in any moral situation.


No it isn't! This is typical delusional rhetoric. "The supreme ethical standard in this world is" survival for the purpose of procreation. Love has nothing to do with life. The mechanics of life in this world requires that, in order to live one must devour another living thing. One must take another living things' life to support ones' own. The "agency" of life is procreation.


edit on 2-4-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




No it isn't! This is typical delusional rhetoric. "The supreme ethical standard in this world is" survival for the purpose of procreation.



This is a typical response, but please explain how morals can be derived from this standard. If the sole ethical standard is propagation and survival then so long as your choice increases your genes in the competition gene pool and have offspring. What is wrong with murder and rape. There are to many of us to compete with not everyone can be happy so lets kill off a few billion so we can survive with better quality of life and the ones we kill can be those with bad genes like mentally handicap people and those born with deformities. We know how propagation works so we are morally obligated to keep the gene pool as clean as possible.....Not to mention this scenario begs the question...it assumes that increasing survival and the population are moral choices. Not only that your attempting to attribute some form of intrinsic value to life with no logical reason too.

I don't know how your using the word agency there. Doesn't make sense in that sentence.


edit on 2-4-2016 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Rex282

The point of this OP was not to prove something...


Yet 3 pages later you are still trying to prove the agency of a God and failing to provide ample evidence(and never will).I am not doubting your core premise I am stating your methodology is flawed because it cannot ever provide ample evidence because it is a futile endeavor.A creator God does not need nor can be proved in any form of religious rhetoric no matter how you paint it.It just becomes a circular argument with the goal posts being moved to and fro.

The fact is if a creator God wants someone to "know" who they are THEY will do the convincing without YOU or anyone else vain arguments of vague unsubstantiated evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join