God is GOOD and I will defend Him. A Challenge for Atheists

reply to post by SuperiorEd


As I don't know you, I'm not in a position of being able to evaluate you as a person. I refer to and relate to the content of your posts.

You appear to have the impression, that I'm biased; this seems to originate from my opposition to your many assumptions, postulates and misuse of elements from various truth-seeking systems competing with your own. So if there is any bias present here, I would personally consider your faith-based and self-contained attitudes a more likely candidate than the opposition, I have presented.

I only bring this up, because you have arrived a point in your postings, where such tactical considerations seem important to you. On my part I consider it unimportant, and I have no intentions of continuing in this direction, you now have initiated.

I have related to your claims of 'god's goodness' all along'; the main problem (as I see it) being, that your reasoning chain doesn't stand (or you don't accept) any scrutiny. I have on occasion offered you an approach from the perspective of rational reasoning, from the 'answer' position to a regression to which systematic methodology is suitable for arriving at answers, but in my understanding, you have declined both actively or passively.

As you have said yourself

Quote: ["We live by faith, not fact"]

Faith is a subjective phenomenon, differing considerable from person to person, whereas 'fact' to some extent is objective.

Throughout this thread you have constantly repeated the almost identical postulate: " 'God' is good ", ....which is your subjective opinion....., AS IF this is an objective statement. But it isn't an objective statement, it's a faith-based postulate, which, if you want to promote it to objectivity, requires far more coherence and deductive reasoning, than you have presented so far.

If you finally have arrived to the conclusion, that your claims after all really are based exclusively on faith, and you want to preach that faith...no problems. Then consider my opposition as preachings going in the other direction.

I do not possess the technical equipment for looking at videos, and in any case I consider such worthless as arguments. That you can present me with some videos doesn't indicate anything about your ability to understand them passively, even less to use their content actively.

But my offer still stands: If you want to go in the direction of scientific 'proofs', feel free. But make them real scientific, not the homegrown version you have demonstrated so far, with theistic concepts turning up in the middle of it.

PS If you want a simple, direct statement on 'god's' goodness' that's no problem. The entity described in especially OT is evil through and through.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

As I have said elsewhere, the original trigunic model (which the christian trinity is a twisted version of), has some sensible points. After the christian hijacking of it, it lost most of that meaning.

I take both modalism and the trinitary view as the same when the excluded middle is considered. God is not present in this reality. We are His image and He manifests His three persons in this image. The work together to create reality and enlighten. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot comprehend. We are living in a dimly lit reality. I would encourage you to go back and look at the Buddhist view at the end of the post. He points straight toward the same understanding and represents the Christian view 500 years early. Christ fulfills this as He represents enlightenment and the fulfillment of the law in total.

I am familiar with buddhistic cosmogony and cosmology. This twisting of it to fit your needs are as bad as your use of science for the same purpose.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with science. Light is photons, belonging to a category of particles called 'transmittors'. Transmittors aren't the basis of the mass of cosmos (that is quarks), neither is the standard 'matter' experience made from photons (but from the repelling of same-polarized electro-magnetic fields).

Please provide me one link to a credible physicist that knows how particles slow down and gain mass to form matter. This is the 8 billion dollar question and why the CERN project is currently being undertaken. We are in the dark when it comes to physics. We have ever-changing theories. That's it. The more we understand, the closer it gets to the simple description in the Bible. God is good.

I can't refer you to any scientist, who can explain how "particles slow down and gain mass to form matter", for the very good reason, that such an idea has nothing to do with science.

reply to post by bogomil


I can only speak for me. You can come around eventually or not. You and I are here together. There are no mistakes in life. I follow the synchronicity where it leads. God is leading you as well. His only hope is to turn your heart of stone into a heart of flesh that can feel love. You have the power to harden it or soften it.

Ask God to humble your heart and allow you to see. He has the power. Watch the movie on netflix free play called Illusion with Kurt Douglass. It's a great movie and can open you eyes. Watch Serious Moonlight with Meg Ryan. All the characters in the movie are from the Biblical narrative. You need to watch closely to see the symbolism in each part. We are acting a part on the same stage.

The same story is told in billions of ways through all of our lives. Movie directors tell the story as well. All of creation proclaims the goodness of God.

Ezekiel 36:24-26
New International Version (NIV)
24 “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Quote: ["We live by faith, not fact."]

Then why do you go to such lengths in creating a pseudo-science?

Quote: ["We all need to think for ourselves."]

Which means that the need of preachers isn't very great, whereas that which stimulates thinking should be encouraged. For once I agree with you.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


If you mean "nous" as in: intellect or intelligence, then most scientist and religious person would disagree with you (that only humans have it).

If your argument rest on the existence of the soul, I'd say it's a "cyclical argument" that lacks outside reference.

It's like saying: "The Good Book is good, because it says it is good."



On the subject of good vs evil, and "god is good", we first need to come to a common answer to the question:

Before the existence of men on this planet, was there any good or evil roaming around on the surface?


Peace

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["We are in the third dimension. We move in the fourth dimension of time. The fifth dimension is indeterminate probability. This means it is yet to be determined. For chaos to be divided into choice, indeterminate probability is moved to a determined choice."]

Apart from the 'dimesional' aspects which has no meaning in this context, this is basic quantum mechanics.

Quote: ["The observer collapses the wave function and makes a choice, drawing a possibility form the infinity of possibility at rest."]

You got it all wrong. There is no 'observer' per se, and no choices are made on the part of this alleged observer.

Quote: ["God has the ability to draw the future into the past for us to see as it passes."]

A faith-based postulate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

The rest of that paragraph is just an extension of further faith-based postulates.

Quote: ["As you ask yourself how I know all this, the answer is simple: I have doubted and been a skeptic my entire life. I simply did the work to answer my own questions. This is where I am today."]

I have a great respect for auto-didact learning. But your almost total ignorance of real science has led you to bizarre conclusions, which aren't even slightly related to real science.

Nice thread Ed... i knew you and bogamil would square off one day

I'll be watching

Really? Its the biggest single question of physics. Link

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with science. Light is photons, belonging to a category of particles called 'transmittors'. Transmittors aren't the basis of the mass of cosmos (that is quarks), neither is the standard 'matter' experience made from photons (but from the repelling of same-polarized electro-magnetic fields).

Please provide me one link to a credible physicist that knows how particles slow down and gain mass to form matter. This is the 8 billion dollar question and why the CERN project is currently being undertaken. We are in the dark when it comes to physics. We have ever-changing theories. That's it. The more we understand, the closer it gets to the simple description in the Bible. God is good.

I can't refer you to any scientist, who can explain how "particles slow down and gain mass to form matter", for the very good reason, that such an idea has nothing to do with science.

This is a good example of how you provide no backing or context to you answers. Try a link or two. Speak from a perspective. What you are doing here is incredulity. We read that you disagree and then it stops. Qualify your perspective so we can learn, compare, contrast. Like I said before, simply standing against provides no perspective of what you stand for.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["We are in the third dimension. We move in the fourth dimension of time. The fifth dimension is indeterminate probability. This means it is yet to be determined. For chaos to be divided into choice, indeterminate probability is moved to a determined choice."]

Apart from the 'dimesional' aspects which has no meaning in this context, this is basic quantum mechanics.

Quote: ["The observer collapses the wave function and makes a choice, drawing a possibility form the infinity of possibility at rest."]

You got it all wrong. There is no 'observer' per se, and no choices are made on the part of this alleged observer.

Quote: ["God has the ability to draw the future into the past for us to see as it passes."]

A faith-based postulate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

The rest of that paragraph is just an extension of further faith-based postulates.

Quote: ["As you ask yourself how I know all this, the answer is simple: I have doubted and been a skeptic my entire life. I simply did the work to answer my own questions. This is where I am today."]

I have a great respect for auto-didact learning. But your almost total ignorance of real science has led you to bizarre conclusions, which aren't even slightly related to real science.

As an atheist, there is nothing for me to deny or support, argue for or against.
Except you. I support you, and your right to believe whatever spirituality you choose.

I love discussions on the topic. But I despise "preachiness" by those pro and con.

Taken to the extreme, this is why we all kill each other all over the Earth.
That, and natural resources. Oil is our "god"

This is where a person can see clearly if they open their eyes.

A person who does not believe in God can simply say that they have faith in the fact that there is no God. In this case, there is nothing there to support the notion, so the best answer is to be incredulous in this faith. The foundation of this disbelief in God is based on the pride of self. An atheist has nothing to stand on or for apart from what He can claim is false.

A person who does believe in God can stand on a firm foundation of truth and virtue. Truth and virtue are never apart from each other. You can't have one without the other. This nature of truth seems like preaching to you because it is based on virtue. Virtue is a standard to achieve and stand for. It is a platform from which to take the high ground. It is a platform that is mirrored by every nook and cranny of this world and expressed by the most subtle element to the base and gross elements of the most depraved mind. Truth and virtue stands above with little effort. This becomes the platform that a believer stands from to see others as equal. A believer has everything to stand for that is true.

This is the paradox of belief. An atheist can behave according to self. If it's okay with the self, it must be okay. The believer has the same nature. We are all sinners. The difference comes by the fruit that our actions bear. The believer will rise to virtue instead of self because His obligation is to others.

The paradox is two fold. The believer and the atheist are both sinners. The believer and the atheist can both achieve virtue to some degree. The difference comes by what we stand for. Truth and virtue come from God. He separates good from evil for the benefit of others. The paradox is that any of us can do this apart from belief, but what do the statistics tell us is the norm?

If a person serves self, the motivation will be to separate good and evil for the benefit of self. The Believer serves others in love, so the motivation will be to suffer for the reward of others and eliminate self pride.

This is where we put it to the test. This current world demonstrates that, apart from a belief in God, people serve their master: SELF. Can an atheist deny self and serve others? YES. This is the exception and not the rule. Can the believer serve self and not others. YES. This is the exception and not the rule.

You can look out across the sea of people in the world and never know who they truly are inside. Through the eyes of belief, you can see your 'self' clearly. Apart from this vision, you will most likely love your self and nothing else.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
As an atheist, there is nothing for me to deny or support, argue for or against.
Except you. I support you, and your right to believe whatever spirituality you choose.

I love discussions on the topic. But I despise "preachiness" by those pro and con.

Taken to the extreme, this is why we all kill each other all over the Earth.
That, and natural resources. Oil is our "god"

This is where a person can see clearly if they open their eyes.

A person who does not believe in God can simply say that they have faith in the fact that there is no God. In this case, there is nothing there to support the notion, so the best answer is to be incredulous according to pride. The foundation of this disbelief in God is based on the pride of self. An atheist has nothing to stand on or for apart from what He can claim is false.

A person who does believe in God can stand on a firm foundation of truth and virtue. Truth and virtue are never apart from each other. You can't have one without the other. This nature of truth seems like preaching to you because it is based on virtue. Virtue is a standard to achieve and stand for. It is a platform from which to take the high ground. It is a platform that is mirrored by every nook and cranny of this world and expressed by the most subtle element to the base and gross elements of the most depraved mind. Truth and virtue stands above with little effort. This becomes the platform that a believer stands from to see others as equal. A believer has everything to stand for that is true.

This is the paradox of belief. An atheist can behave according to self. If it's okay with the self, it must be okay. The believer has the same nature. We are all sinners. The difference comes by the fruit that our actions bear. The believer will rise to virtue instead of self because His obligation is to others.

The paradox is two fold. The believer and the atheist are both sinners. The believer and the atheist can both achieve virtue to some degree. The difference comes by what we stand for. Truth and virtue come from God. He separates good from evil for the benefit of others. The paradox is that any of us can do this apart from belief, but what do the statistics tell us is the norm?

If a person serves self, the motivation will be to separate good and evil for the benefit of self. The Believer serves others in love, so the motivation will be to suffer for the reward of others and eliminate self pride.

This is where we put it to the test. This current world demonstrates that, apart from a belief in God, people serve their master: SELF. Can an atheist deny self and serve others? YES. This is the exception and not the rule. Can the believer serve self and not others. YES. This is the exception and not the rule.

You can look out across the sea of people in the world and never know who they truly are inside. Through the eyes of belief, you can see your 'self' clearly. Apart from this vision, you will most likely love your self and nothing else.

This isn't even the point. The point is that we are all sinners and, apart from Christ, we cannot save ourselves. Save from what? Ourselves!!!!! Christ came to keep us from destroying each others. Christ came to give us eternal life and not destruction. He came to honor, protect and defend. This is God's plan for all His creation. It is the law of love. You cannot love others if you do not love all of them. God is one of the others.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
As an atheist, there is nothing for me to deny or support, argue for or against.
Except you. I support you, and your right to believe whatever spirituality you choose.

I love discussions on the topic. But I despise "preachiness" by those pro and con.

Taken to the extreme, this is why we all kill each other all over the Earth.
That, and natural resources. Oil is our "god"

Originally posted by bogomil
A faith-based postulate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

The rest of that paragraph is just an extension of further faith-based postulates.

I have a great respect for auto-didact learning. But your almost total ignorance of real science has led you to bizarre conclusions, which aren't even slightly related to real science.

F.Y.I. this is the Religion, FAITH, and Theology forum. Science often takes a back seat or no seat at all in this forum. If someone says water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen then I say "You know Jesus walked on water?" For everyone that speaks of the law of conservation of energy I can point out how Jesus made fish and bread out of nothing to feed 5,000.

So yes, YES! A faith based postulate, and what an interesting assumption at that. Isn't it wonderful when people expand their minds beyond what we can see, touch, and study to include things that could be?

God is good. He separates evil from good; darkness from light. All outcomes are based on a perfect law that can only do good and must demand payment for imbalance. Any judgment we have against the Governor of these laws assumes we believe Him to be evil, or at least partially evil. Only our perspective can be incorrect if balance is required by the law giver. If the law giver takes for Himself, then there is an imbalance. This is not observed in nature.

If you read the OP, you have a map of the territory. God created the territory and can see all perspectives at once. Our only goal must be to do good to others and leave the judgment to Him. All things work for the good of those who love Him. To love Him, you must be willing to love others. If you cannot love God or others, then you are creating an imbalance that will be corrected by the Governor of the law.

Evil is not a product or a result of this law. There must be a possibility of evil for there to be free will. God is in the business of separating the two and keeping them apart. All opposites are then seen by the first two opposites of good and evil. The entire world is the middle point between one half and the other in a reflection like a mirror. The two sides must be equal to be a true reflection. We must work so that all opposites are set to the benefit of all and not the benefit of the few.

Yes. There are consequences for our actions. Therefore, we must all work together and not merely for self interests.


I posted this in another thread but it belongs here as well. This is a good reason God is good. Balance. The pendulum swings and always ends in balance.

Why does this make the Bible real and God good? Because we witness this law each day acting against our poor choices and for our good choices. Roses smell good. Body odor stinks. Could God have reversed this? Why is one bad and the other good? Why is poison bitter and sugar sweet? Why are all your life functions automatically regulated and set to function on their own? Why do the rods and cones in your eyes provide vision without you doing a thing? Why does your brain automatically calculate the mathematics necessary for you to walk, jump and run apart from your conscious effort? What do you really do besides make choices mentally? Nothing. It is all done for you.

We can only be held responsible for choices if there is someone to give account to for the resulting actions. Ultimately, no law can exist without a law giver. Who governs the laws of nature? Who runs your body and the universe on autopilot? If all of nature pays a penalty for the law, then there assuredly is a Governor of those laws that demand the account. One cannot be there without the other or you stop working on auto. You are not walking in life. You are walked. You think you choose, but what choice do you really have? You have the choice to believe or not believe that this is happening or you can deny that it exists. Either way, it happens.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Really? Its the biggest single question of physics. Link

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with science. Light is photons, belonging to a category of particles called 'transmittors'. Transmittors aren't the basis of the mass of cosmos (that is quarks), neither is the standard 'matter' experience made from photons (but from the repelling of same-polarized electro-magnetic fields).

Please provide me one link to a credible physicist that knows how particles slow down and gain mass to form matter. This is the 8 billion dollar question and why the CERN project is currently being undertaken. We are in the dark when it comes to physics. We have ever-changing theories. That's it. The more we understand, the closer it gets to the simple description in the Bible. God is good.

I can't refer you to any scientist, who can explain how "particles slow down and gain mass to form matter", for the very good reason, that such an idea has nothing to do with science.

edit on 7-7-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

Where was the 'slowing down' part in this link?

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

This is a good example of how you provide no backing or context to you answers. Try a link or two. Speak from a perspective. What you are doing here is incredulity. We read that you disagree and then it stops. Qualify your perspective so we can learn, compare, contrast. Like I said before, simply standing against provides no perspective of what you stand for.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You wrote:

["We are in the third dimension. We move in the fourth dimension of time. The fifth dimension is indeterminate probability. This means it is yet to be determined. For chaos to be divided into choice, indeterminate probability is moved to a determined choice."]

Apart from the 'dimesional' aspects which has no meaning in this context, this is basic quantum mechanics.

Quote: ["The observer collapses the wave function and makes a choice, drawing a possibility form the infinity of possibility at rest."]

You got it all wrong. There is no 'observer' per se, and no choices are made on the part of this alleged observer.

Quote: ["God has the ability to draw the future into the past for us to see as it passes."]

A faith-based postulate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

The rest of that paragraph is just an extension of further faith-based postulates.

Quote: ["As you ask yourself how I know all this, the answer is simple: I have doubted and been a skeptic my entire life. I simply did the work to answer my own questions. This is where I am today."]

I have a great respect for auto-didact learning. But your almost total ignorance of real science has led you to bizarre conclusions, which aren't even slightly related to real science.

That would practically mean to give you a basic education in science, comparative religion and philosophy. That is something you can do on your own.

I must emphasize, that this is not to be interpretated as patronising or carrying arguments on authority. Sometimes there is simply a basic (but not acknowledged) ignorance, which it's impossible to relate to.

My talent for playing violin is minimal, and I'm almost an imbecile with a computer. Such things are not measure-tapes for peoples' 'value'. It's just practical considerations.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by bogomil
A faith-based postulate, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

The rest of that paragraph is just an extension of further faith-based postulates.

I have a great respect for auto-didact learning. But your almost total ignorance of real science has led you to bizarre conclusions, which aren't even slightly related to real science.

F.Y.I. this is the Religion, FAITH, and Theology forum. Science often takes a back seat or no seat at all in this forum. If someone says water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen then I say "You know Jesus walked on water?" For everyone that speaks of the law of conservation of energy I can point out how Jesus made fish and bread out of nothing to feed 5,000.

So yes, YES! A faith based postulate, and what an interesting assumption at that. Isn't it wonderful when people expand their minds beyond what we can see, touch, and study to include things that could be?

Usually when the 'attention' is directed at this subforum being what it is, it's just a tactical way of saying: "I want to preach without opposition". Your comment is less trite and more to the real point.

But as the thread-author actively brings in a faith-science combination, the intensive science aspect isn't a black/white enforcement of science on my part. Not least because I'm completely familiar with the basic differences between faith and science as 'positions' and also because I never would consider making science THE ultimate methodology (that would be putting it in the faith category).

I have taken the different constellations of science, faith and science-faith in consideration and on this thread offered the thread-author optional choices, which I believe would clarify the various positions.

My present main criticism is, that there, by the thread-author, is presented such a jumbled mess of arguments from all directions, that it's useless.

Relating to your post: Until the mythological 'fish-and-bread' situation can be considered from a science/logic perspective, it stays on faith-ground. It can't be put in the middle of of a deductive/rational-reasoning chain as a 'proof' of anything, e.g. postulating, that this objectively 'proves' trans-cosmic existence or trans-cosmic specifics (= miraculous/magic phenomena). Especially not if that is the aim of such a reasoning-chain. In a science/logic context things aren't proved by themselves.

So I'll continue to insist on some 'purity' concerning positions and the material used, fully respecting faith as a legitimate, individual subjective position, but never accepting claims of 'objectivity', before objective criteria are met.

In other words: A faith can't be imposed in any context as a universal 'truth', before this is demonstrated. Otherwise the flying spaghetti monster CAN be claimed to be THE truth.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Your most recent post (11:22 PM) is a full-scale sermon, but before I approach your posts from that direction, I still strongly insist on a clarification of positions (as I wrote to dbates). It's completely impossible to consider a 'god' who sometimes comes from the bible, sometimes is a 'dimension' (or similar) in a home-brewed pseudo-science system, and sometimes both.

So until you present more coherent reasoning-chains, I can only compress my comments of this whole post to: Faith-based postulates.

reply to post by bogomil

Your most recent post (11:22 PM) is a full-scale sermon,

Not one that could be preached professionally. This is in the made-up category. Maybe if there was a such thing as the Church of the Pseudo-Science. Even a Unitarian church would be more demanding than would allow too much of that. At least I would think so. Maybe on a weeknight meeting or something. My point being, it does not come across as being Christian.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

Your most recent post (11:22 PM) is a full-scale sermon,

Not one that could be preached professionally. This is in the made-up category. Maybe if there was a such thing as the Church of the Pseudo-Science. Even a Unitarian church would be more demanding than would allow too much of that. At least I would think so. Maybe on a weeknight meeting or something. My point being, it does not come across as being Christian.

edit on 8-7-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Being neither theist not ANTI-theist (though some people like to believe that), my main complaint here isn't the intrinsic message per se, but the way it's put together, presented and often pushed.

And sad to say, this kind of partly 'quantum religion' is becoming a fad in exoteric theist circles. It's a through-the-syncretistic-blender religion, where everything comes out suitably homogenized.

"One 'god' fits all".