The thread that will never get a real answer

reply to post by Joecroft


that isn't my quote,,,

reply to post by Akragon




Sorry about that,. I quoted the wrong part, I was more interested in the general flow of the conversation, but I have fixed it now...


Hope that clears it up…gota go now...will be back later…


- JC

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by Frira

I responded to what you wrote, and you respond, each time, by changing the subject. You provide no evidence-- no authorities other than "take a look on the Internet." You take a side, and digest only what fits your already made-up mind.

You are a moving target-- because being wrong doesn't matter to you-- as long as you can be on the offensive.

Enjoy, being offensive; it is the most you can hope for.

I can understand how hard it must be to have big portions of your worldview refuted, but it doesn't help your case when you continue to make false claims and dishonest statements.

You're fully aware of the evidence I have presented to you (remember the two links, one you referred to as 'interesting') but I'm not going to do your research for you, you're responsible for your own education.

Oh, and have a look at jmdewey60's post on his videos on geocentrism (thanks jm, interesting vids), they will be enlightening (try to ignore the fact that jmdewey60 doesnt go to your particular church, and you have never met him, as it's irrelevant), as I'm pretty sure he is a follower of Jesus

You have an opinion; whereas I have sheepskins on my brag wall which say I have an informed and academic opinion.

You read blogs which you have read and talked this over with some guy at the bar name Bob, whereas I have other sheepskins on my wall which states I am a professional theologian-- having read through mountains of texts-- both ancient and modern-- and understood them.

That is four sheepskins on my wall. That is a lot of books read, and a lot of professional work with other professionals. I get paid to consult and teach, and give seminars, do public speaking and write... and you still have your blogs with very small words because the blogger knows you don't own a dictionary.

When I was twelve, I was reading and writing at a post graduate (that is college) level. For years, my editors had to rework it so it could be understood down at an eighth grade level. That was because I got my start as editor for a prominent and prolific Christian Theologian. My real name appears in Acknowledgments of theological books written by others.

See that line break? When I write on the Internet, I keep in mind I have readers who only know the Internet, and so keep my "paragraphs" to one or two sentences. And yet, I can only dumb it down so far. I only point this out for you because you are such a punk.

Now, run along and let the adults talk.

I could prove God is real, most Christians can easily. But I won't. Even if someone rose from the dead to show your prove you wouldn't care. And besides, Hell needs people too you know.

Originally posted by Frira

You have an opinion; whereas I have sheepskins on my brag wall which say I have an informed and academic opinion.

I'll have to take your word for that, as your recent history with making claims isn't too great, I just hope this claim has some relevance............

Originally posted by Frira

You read blogs which you have read and talked this over with some guy at the bar name Bob

I do? I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you saying I read these blogs twice? or is it evidence of all that hard work you put into earning those sheepskins? And which bar? who is this guy at the bar 'name' Bob?

Originally posted by Frira

whereas I have other sheepskins on my wall which states I am a professional theologian-- having read through mountains of texts-- both ancient and modern-- and understood them.

Again i'll have to take your word for this claim........but again i'm not sure what it has to do with anything or why you're making such a claim

Originally posted by Frira

That is four sheepskins on my wall. That is a lot of books read, and a lot of professional work with other professionals. I get paid to consult and teach, and give seminars, do public speaking and write... and you still have your blogs with very small words because the blogger knows you don't own a dictionary.

I don't? I'm starting to think your attempting to be insulting, albeit in a very bizzar way. I will say that going off what you have posted in your last reply, the chances of you owning a sheepskin (never mind the other claims) are getting smaller and smaller the more I read.

Originally posted by Frira

When I was twelve, I was reading and writing at a post graduate (that is college) level. For years, my editors had to rework it so it could be understood down at an eighth grade level. That was because I got my start as editor for a prominent and prolific Christian Theologian. My real name appears in Acknowledgments of theological books written by others.

If true, that's all very nice but I now seriously doubt any claim made in this reply, as there seems to be a clear line of desperation throughout. I cannot think of any other reason as to why someone would mention these things (true or not), without it being an attempt to win the argument through authority. Which I hope we both know is a fallacy.

And I have to wonder, what kind of "prominent and prolific Christian Theologian" would employ a twelve year old to edit his or anyone elses work?

Originally posted by Frira

See that line break? When I write on the Internet, I keep in mind I have readers who only know the Internet, and so keep my "paragraphs" to one or two sentences. And yet, I can only dumb it down so far.

While I think its great you're so thoughtful when it comes to the needs of your 'readers', I can't help but think your time would be better spent working on your English grammar ( E.g. "You read blogs which you have read and talked this over with some guy at the bar name Bob").

Originally posted by Frira

I only point this out for you because you are such a punk.

Oh, is this how people with sheepskins and who consult, teach, give seminars, do public speaking and write.......whos real name appears in acknowledgments of theological books written by others........show their class to end or win an argument?

You know you could of just shown me where I was wrong, and explained why, but instead you have lowered yourself to the lowest common denominator, throwing all of your claims into serious doubt.

This is a great example of why I love to debate theists, you fail so spectacularly

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

I thought about this question and how it might be answered but it is just something you have to figure out yourself.
In my case, I have a lot of things to work with, while others apparently do no, at least not as dramatic as my own experiences. One example would be what King James wrote a little while ago about someone coming back from the dead, and something about hell. I had that happen, where I died and came back from hell. It seems kind of weird but I died twice, about twenty years apart, and maybe that was to erase any doubts I may have had about what really happened the first time, since I never said anything about the first incident until after the second.
The story I could tell that is a little more mundane since it does not include an actual death or a trip to hell, would be another thing that happened when I was around fourteen, not too sure because of when my birthday is so I may also have been fifteen. I was hanging off the edge of a thousand foot cliff and thinking about my death which seemed pretty close at hand, when I heard someone talking to me and asking if I needed help. I said I could probably use some help since I did not know what else to do given the circumstances. So this person lent me a hand and I was somehow able to get from where I was, back onto the top. I had no idea who this person was or where he came from and he walked around the corner and I never saw him again, though we were up on top a a mountain and there wasn't really a way to get down without having run into him at some point.
So, here is something for me to wonder about. Was that God who met me on that cliff face, or was it someone sent by God, or are there lots of strange entities that just go around doing random acts. I don't know. I do remember when I was in hell, asking God to save me, but that is about the only way I can connect God, and it is only something that I think I can call out if I need assistance but I have no idea what is happening at the other end.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Hahaha, i admit that last post was quite amusing

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Theophorus

 

When someone doesn't agree with you... you resort to character assassination such as...

Try using some intellect...

or

spiritual growth? There you go again. Something that has no shape, no size,no anything can not grow. Boy, you are simply Hard headed.

Yes, i would call that being prickish... sorry if the truth hurts...

Lets take a look at "spiritual growth".... Since i bring nothing to the table

2 Peter 3:18,
“Continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our savior, Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 2:2
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby

And of course the parable of the mustard seed...

This is just from the bible... i could go through almost any religion and it will tell you your spirit grows as you experience life... It grows in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of life.

I deal with people that insult me every day of my life.... at least they can't help it... on the other hand you can and chose not to... Thats being a prick... deal with it.

All you bring to the table is your opinion... I bring scripture from accepted texts... And i will toss some gnostic text in to the mix if its needed...

So next time you care to degrade someones character within a post...

Check yourself first

I'll go over it again for those who don't take such a literal approach to scripture.
Physical things that grow can be measured.
Common sense tells us there's a difference between things that can be measured, and things which can not. knowledge and grace are two things which can not. (prove how they can) We as humans obtain knowledge and lose knowledge, obtain grace and lose grace. its not a constant.
Your interpretation of what scripture says and what is truth, conflict. you must be mistaken .

Originally posted by Prezbo369

You know you could of just shown me where I was wrong, and explained why, but instead you have lowered yourself to the lowest common denominator, throwing all of your claims into serious doubt.

Let's see, this was your very first post:

* "nothing but arguments from ignorance."
* "do not and should be the products of any fully functioning brains. "
* "pretty ridiculous"

From your second post:

* "People are not killing themselves or each other because I may or may not exist."

From your third post:

* "These are all whats called arguments from ignorance,"
* "They convince only the dullest of minds."
* "This is a complete fallacy"

Then, as you stated that the theory of evolution was...

As proof goes, its the most water tight proof we have ever discovered, and proponents of evolution have indeed met their burden of proof.

... I entered to comment that it was not the superlative as it could not be recreated and only addressed a small portion of the theory.

There. I corrected you and showed you where you were wrong-- just as you asked I would do. I had already done it.

You responded with a link to an experiment about bacteria adapting.

It does not address the theory of evolution in total-- Lower forms to higher forms, for example; or species change which can no longer mate with prior species-- and for that matter, the e-coli experiment did not address natural selection at all.

But you chose to ignore that, and simply repeated:

read MOST watertight

Then, you wrote...

for the same reasons they teach misinformation about evolution. It directly contradicts religious scripture, and nothing else.

You apply motive-- always dangerous.

Scripture, being silent on evolution, cannot be contradicted by the theory of evolution. Howevere, Interpretation of Scripture so as to deny evolution is NOT a doctrine of the Church. You paint with a broad and insulting brush-- again (go back and read the quotes from your fist post).

Your theme began with, and continues to be, disparagement of Christians.

Then you went on with YOUR OWN interpretation of Scripture!

You interpreted it in such a way as to create a "straw man" you can easily push over. What a hero! Don't hurt yourself, strong man, picking up that piece of dust.

Again, as you asked, I pointed your error-- that you held that the Church, but no one else-- believed in a flat earth, or a geocentric solar system.

And you responded?

That American Indian tribe was then probably exterminated during the following holocaust by the christian settlers.......

You see? You cannot face an error, even when gently corrected. So you change the subject, apply motive, ignore history and give an emotional, angry and hateful statement.

-----

Back it up.

* Show me a Church tenet or doctrine stating that the Christian must believe that the Earth is flat. I said there is no such doctrine.

* Show me a Church doctrine or tenet stating that the Christian must believe that the Sun orbits the Earth? I said there is no such doctrine.

* Show me a Church doctrine or tenet stating that the American Indians were to be exterminated? I say there is no such doctrine.

Besides assigning motive, you claim to speak for the Church by assigning what Christians must believe. I have the authority to speak for the Church-- not all will accept it, and that is fine-- and as it should be. But, you have no authority to speak for the Church-- at all.

You have not found me writing to defend a doctrine of the Church which you have opposed as foolish-- what you have read of me is claiming that the doctrine you claim the Church holds does not exist as a doctrine.

Knowing the doctrines held by the Church is a requirement of my profession. Non professionals are not held to such a standard. The average Joe and Jill in the pew speculate without academic discipline-- rarely having the resources to fully insure that they have a proper understanding. As a result, many Christians hold opinions, and confuse their opinions with reasonable articulation of Church doctrine.

I have to deal with that every day-- and I write for them, because I assume they have the intellect, but just not the learning.

Here is my counter-- to speak for you:

All atheists are required to believe that they are smarter than anyone else, and hate all others and blame their own evil on Christians.

I don't believe that, and do not have the authority to claim it to be true. But I can point to the first 300 plus years of the Church when the Christians were under constant persecution.

Should I not then, using your logic, blame you?

reply to post by WakeUpRiseUp

Originally posted by
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

I’m just going to focus on their being a creator, which is what God is.


Think about the formation of all the elements in the early beginnings of the universe, and how they work and interact with each other. Then think about the processes, which would have had to go into making/happening those elements, and how they would have to go from the simple, to the complex. And then consider that happening by chance alone, through a long series of interconnecting chance factors, each reliant upon the other, without any guided direction. Next, think about motion, and where motion comes from; you need motion to start an initial process, and for that process to have started, it needs to have a will and intent IMO.


People often quote probabilities, and that there is always one chance of an outcome happening, out of an arbitrary number etc. But think about this; just because there is 1 chance of something happening, doesn’t mean that it’s eventually going to happen… It may never happen!


So think not that I must prove God to you, but that you must prove to me, that we all got here by chance. God practically proves himself…Chance is the real spaghetti monster…


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


How do you connect the two things, the existence of the universe, and the existence of God?
The general concept of a god is one who has a certain degree of mastery over the various aspects of the physical universe which directly effects the lives of the people who worship this particular god. I think this must be a modern invention, this idea of God creating the universe, not being something held by any of the ancients that I know about.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Joecroft

 

How do you connect the two things, the existence of the universe, and the existence of God?
The general concept of a god is one who has a certain degree of mastery over the various aspects of the physical universe which directly effects the lives of the people who worship this particular god. I think this must be a modern invention, this idea of God creating the universe, not being something held by any of the ancients that I know about.

your using the term existence rather loosely. Material things can't put themselves into existence.( An atom cannot split itself.) Only the mind(spirit) can solicit the body (matter ).God possess all things in his own right. God is omni everything. For existence to be separate from God, God would not possess it.this is a contradiction as to gods nature. God is not in existence, he is existence.

reply to post by Theophorus

God is omni everything.

Cute little saying but it's just your opinion.
How about an ancient source for this philosophy?
The people who created the concept of god in various ancient cultures recognized the chaotic nature of the universe and attributed its creation to dragons and other equally destructive forces, while the gods are the anti-dragon, who bring order out of chaos, which to us is good and we have things like seasons that come in their time and rain to water the crops, so we can continue to live in a world situated in a harsh universe.
When you try to say god created the universe you are creating a contradiction, meaning you are creating an anti-god who is both good and evil, which defeats the purpose of having a god in the first place. We already have a good and evil thing, the universe, without any gods.
Now you can adjust things a bit by having two opposing gods, one good and one evil, but then you still do not have an all-powerful god. The normal solution to the god question is that God created everything good and the rest was just there by some primeval force which is not around at the present other than the effects they left us with and for God to deal with.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Hypotheticaly speaking, if there was such a god,as the Biblical god, wouldn't that deity have to be omni everything.
Actually you could take any monotheistic based religion and apply the same philosophy. And to take it a little bit further, their can only be one God. Having two deities, the more intelligent one would cancel the other out.

reply to post by Theophorus

. . . wouldn't that deity have to be omni everything.

You are making an assumption.
The next step would be to ask yourself if there is any way you might prove this assumption.
In your hypothetical, you would inquire into the Bible to see if it says anything like that.
What I have done and actually just the slightest amount of this, is to look at what the various cosmologies were at the time when the Old Testament and the New Testament were written and to see if the biblical writers were saying anything that would demonstrate that they were at variance with whatever the generally held view of what cosmology is. If you find that the biblical writers are not too far off than whatever was held at the time, then you look at what those views were. What you find is some sort of primeval something which is a bit nebulous in that there was something which existed in the void that caused things to be set in motion in a specific sort of way in order to form something coherent, as in having a structure. This primeval cause is always detached from the ordinary named and known gods.

Originally posted by Theophorus

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Joecroft

 

How do you connect the two things, the existence of the universe, and the existence of God?
The general concept of a god is one who has a certain degree of mastery over the various aspects of the physical universe which directly effects the lives of the people who worship this particular god. I think this must be a modern invention, this idea of God creating the universe, not being something held by any of the ancients that I know about.

your using the term existence rather loosely. Material things can't put themselves into existence.( An atom cannot split itself.)

Do we know that?

I see what you are saying-- that one atom by itself (as opposed to in dense quantity) will not, without outside influence, split. Yet, I am not sure that other, unseen quantum forces cannot introduce change. That they do not with regularity is apparent, but that they cannot... I'm not so sure... Schrodinger's Cat.

I seem to recall reading that the force which binds the three quarks in a proton together is such that it would take the equivalent of 100 tons to separate, and so while we recognize that an enormous amount of energy is required to break a proton, we must also recognize that there is a tremendous amount of energy already present-- which must be overcome to smash it. What that energy may do, if given enough chances to change from equilibrium...

So, perhaps, and for a relevant example... The Creation Story's tohu wa bohu ("without form and void" or "vacuuous chaos") refers to the beginning of the four spatial-temporal dimensions-- but a natural result of already existing dimensions? Those hidden but mathematically necessary dimension are certainly "without form" from a human perception, and THUS "void;" but not necessarily negating the pre-existence of non-spatial-temporal... stuff.

In thinking of quantum physics in our own time, we see science, increasingly, exploring mysteries by use of math, rather than observation-- a sort of "speculate until the speculation works" process; and then try and test it. The Higgs boson is but a mathematically speculative particle-- unobserved (until recently-- I guess, we'll know on Tuesday when the announcement is to come from CERN). But just a few decades ago, it was the unseen atom (now seen), and then the unseen proton, neutron and electron (now proven), then quarks (now proven), and then a cast of hundreds-- because the mathematical speculation worked.

So it is with theological speculation-- attempting to resolve the mysteries by speculation-- and with a smattering of outside Help in the form of individual spiritual experiences with enough of a common theme to suggest the speculation is well directed.

Two thousand years ago, astrology and astronomy were inseparable. A thousand years ago, chemistry and alchemy were inseparable.

And perhaps, in that, there is a lesson that the spiritual experiences will be left a mystery which cannot be solved by science, and yet science can refine the religious speculation? Truth is truth, and we are all better off for letting it be so.

I am increasingly convinced that an awe and wonder of the physical universe has promoted much false belief-- false gods and false claims of God. For whatever reason, humans love the sensation of awe and wonder-- and that many mistake that with the presence of God-- and so chase that feeling rather than seek God. Denying a scientific position for the purpose of retaining awe and wonder is not finding God-- it is finding beauty.

And if we find beauty and think of God-- that becomes a philosophical question and not a scientific one: Why do humans seek beauty in physical things?

But I won't leave that train of thought without adding:

That humans adore awe, wonder, beauty, truth, justice, love-- and all the altruisms-- says something about who and what we are-- what we aspire to be. That is half of the human mystery-- To What are we? The other half is, "From Whence are we?"

For me, "From whence?" is answered by the mystery, "In the image and likeness of God."
For me, "To What"?" is articulated in the Incarnation, "God became man so that man might become god."

It is religious experience (my own, and those of others) which has me convinced that God IS. It is not science, it is not Scripture which proves God-- it is experience, it is heart, it is mind, and it is God which have convinced me. And I cannot give that to anyone else, just as it was not given to me by anyone else, but by the Other.

reply to post by Frira

"From whence?" is answered by the mystery, "In the image and likeness of God."

The thing I am considering is the one-time existence of a non-person entity.
The thoughts (of this entity outside any sort of existence we can comprehend) became reality, and so it was "used up" like a salmon going to where it came from an egg and laid its own eggs and died. As part of that "spawning" we get all the spiritual entities but they are now connected with the physical thing that came out of just pure thought or whatever. Each level of existence in the material universe has its own level of spirit beings. We are ones but have a vulnerability to the forces of the cosmos to where we really need a higher order being to assist us so we don't end up being stagnant or something where we can't fulfill any of our potentials, such as our own creating things, which seems to be this underlying theme that exists in all life forms.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

"From whence?" is answered by the mystery, "In the image and likeness of God."

The thing I am considering is the one-time existence of a non-person entity.
The thoughts (of this entity outside any sort of existence we can comprehend) became reality, and so it was "used up" like a salmon going to where it came from an egg and laid its own eggs and died. As part of that "spawning" we get all the spiritual entities but they are now connected with the physical thing that came out of just pure thought or whatever.

I think I understand. This "one-time existence" IS the universe, transformed-- its (or Its) existence changed into the universe in all its dimensions, including matter and energy, and so no longer the existence?

If that is the sense of what you write, then there is a cycle inherent in your words which follow...

Each level of existence in the material universe has its own level of spirit beings. We are ones but have a vulnerability to the forces of the cosmos to where we really need a higher order being to assist us so we don't end up being stagnant or something where we can't fulfill any of our potentials, such as our own creating things, which seems to be this underlying theme that exists in all life forms.

So that all life forms then strive for the ability to "think into existence" even if the ultimate achievement of that trajectory of life means its own form of existence ends and so the cycle repeats?

In other words, the existence of thought transforming again into a universe, so that the former existence is again no longer; but that matter, energy, force, light, time, etc. again exist?

Hmmm.

A new way to look at the crazy sounding double-slit experiment-- the one that gives the appearance that light particles or electrons are self-aware.

I was thinking the other night that if a photon did not apparently change from particle to wave (and visa versa) when necessary to make that change, that all space would be "dense" with light. All light would act like a solid beam, and the universe would be filled with infinite solid beams. Instead of being able to see individual light sources and reflections, all existence would only be solid light.

So, why not apply that and suggest that thought and created universe exist simultaneously; just as photons exist as wave and particle?

If that is so, perhaps the expanding Universe which we believe began at a single hypothetical point can be likened to a 14.3 billion year transformation from particle form to wave form (my analogy for from thought to matter)-- neither annihilating one to become the other? It is only one's relative perspective (in space or time) which sees one as overwhelming the other?

Imperceptibly, except when taken as a whole, then perhaps the matter retains the meaning, purpose, etc. of the Thought which brought it into apparent being?

That would not be to say that the matter is the same as the Thought which caused its existence (panentheism), nor that the thought ceased to be connected to the matter (Deism/"God is dead") but that the matter is a manifestation of the Thought in which that same Thought not only participates, but claims as its own (Theism) and both draws and directs to Itself.

Okay, that was fun.

" I am part of god "

reply to post by Frira


Paul is talking about Jesus in Philippians 2 and saying he found himself in the form of god.
What does this mean, "found himself"?
Did God and gods find themselves as gods like we find ourselves being humans?

I got into this because I don't think that saying the universe exists proves the existence of God.

Instead of looking at the heavens and thinking God made all that, it might be more appropriate to think, Today a giant asteroid did not come by and pull the atmosphere away from the Earth so that we all would have died. Thank you, God.