Understanding a Christian World View Pt One.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

As a Christian what are the very basic assumptions about the world that I would make? The most basic assumption is that this world's existence is contingent upon the existence of some type of Creative Entity.

Why...or...how comes you assume that it neccessarily must be some "entity" that is the creative force? Can't you imagine Creativity as such, without being some sort of entity? That needs to be answered by you for me to be willing to continue my argument. Else I will be wasting my time....by "preaching" to deaf ears.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Physicist are at a complete loss of how to prove the most basic principles of quantum physics(like quantum entanglement) yet you believe you have proven you know how a creator God exists.Even Yahoshua never attempted to prove there was a creator God.The only thing you have proven about your "Christian world view"(and intellect) is you are foolish enough to argue with a ghost about nothing….. over an over.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You continue to imply that I get an answer and then come to a conclusion but that is not how I personally came to my views.

Excellent! Then you must have some objective source from where you get this information from. Feel free to cite.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
So the truth is your inserting an option that is not known.

No. We do actually know what a singularity is. It's not some random guess of which has no evidence, and that was the entire point all together.

You stated that "Logically the universe could not have caused itself. Matter could not have created itself. Because the idea of something creating itself is self-contradictory.", you assumed that the claim is "the universe came from nothing", this is evident because you never denied this when I mentioned it in my first post.

The rebuttal to your inaccurate portrayal of others' and science's views, was that no one has stated that "the universe came from nothing" or that "the universe created itself. I showed you what the accurate view actually is.

If you want to debate the science behind it, feel free to make a topic on it

The point was made, you're initial view was incorrect, do you disagree?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
If we are actually going by the world view you claim to follow why have you came to this conclusion rather than taking the appropriate I don't know what was before the first planck time approach?

Because you never asked "what was before the singularity", You made the assertion that "there was nothing before the universe". There was... and that's the singularity.

Your view was inaccurate and based on a false premise.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Are you saying its possible that matter is eternal?

Yes. It is possible that matter is eternal, and it is possible that matter is finite. We don't know.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think we have different ideas of what makes something true. I believe something logically incoherent cannot be true. There is nothing logically incoherent about an eternal creator. You might question it's whether or not it is logically sound but nothing about the idea is incoherent.

Coherency is irrelevant. I can make up whatever I want and it could theoretically make sense. The only thing that matters if it's actually accurate or not. Coherency certainly doesn't beget truth.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Your question however doesn't make any logical sense. Asking when eternity begins or ends is not a valid question just like asking what is the shape of purple is not a valid question.

Your assumption that the most sensible answer that you can conclude is that a magical being that exists outside of time and space, for some reason gives any sort of crap about an extremely insignificant ape species on a backwater planet in an small solar system in the middle of a galaxy within an ocean of galaxies within a universe that has not one shred of evidence to suggest a magical origin or continuous functionality, but instead a natural origin to literally everything, is what doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is that you apply specific rules like "everything has a creator" "everything has a designer" "everything has an agent" "everything has information written by Agent Smith", All these rules of yours apply to every single thing, except for god. And the reason is? Magic? That's what doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You are claiming that is the logic I am using but it is not. It you simply using dishonest debate tactics.

Except that I quoted you and showed you that you stated: "The entity is an agent, an agent does things in any environment, I believe the entity is an agent because the entity created everything”

How is that dishonest… the quote is right there for everyone to see.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
That is a statement that I defended right after I said it.

…. And you in no way understand how that is your preconceived answer that you’re moulding everything around in order to fit your preconceived answer?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
You want to argue against the statement when you aren't familiar with the terms I am using….

Nobody is familiar with your terms because you’ve made them up. You are the sole individual who is familiar with the terms you’re using.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The word agent or agency is a philosophical term and it means exactly what I said it means in the OP its not some word I just made up…

Excellent! Cite your claims next time.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Wrong. I am starting to assume you a purposely misrepresenting me for the sake of argument. I described information in the OP using the color analogy. So yes I did describe what information is.

The point that I’m arguing is when you assume that: The creation of information is contingent upon something with agency. Which is not in the least bit accurate as I have shown you with rocks. The same thing can be stated about anything. Just look at how gravity creates order, yet there is no ‘implied process’ that informs gravity to create order.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Because weight and pressure of rock creating a diamond over time is a physical process. Information is what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. It is the message....the random action of weight and pressure creating a diamond doesn't communicate information describing the process as you have done is the production and exchange information.

This is beyond psychotic. And where is the evidence of an ‘agent’ meddling with physics in order do achieve all these?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
An agent is simply something with agency.

What is an eavestrough?: An eavestrough is eaves with a trough.

Good job…

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Agency is simply the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes I have said that the way that biological systems work imply their need for an agent behind their existence.

And the evidence is where?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Its quite obvious that you haven't taken the time to even try and understand what I have said...decide if you want to argue or have a conversation. Right now you are being dismissive and not attempting to understand anything.

I understand perfectly.

You believe god created the universe. That is the literal translation of “The most basic assumption is that this world's existence is contingent upon the existence of some type of Creative Entity.”

You also believe that it’s logical to conclude this because “the universe had to have come from something” because “Cause and effect”

You also believe that “God created information within everything to allow it’s processes to function as is, without his continuous involvement” and you believe that the evidence for this is “information exists, AKA Light/DNA/Gravity/Physical Constants”

Am I getting anything wrong so far?

What I don’t understand is why you think that no one already knows the basics of a ‘christian world view’?

What I understand even less is that even though I summed up your entire OP in one sentence per trait, that you feel that drastically overcomplicating the matter is more beneficial than simplifying it.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147

Clever. It was to make a point I am sure you know what I meant so why be so childish?

The first part I showed you how your point was moot.

The second part I showed you merely out of educational purposes.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So why does the existence of information lead you to the idea that the Creative Entity is an agent? Again a rather simple answer. The creation of information is contingent upon something with agency. A rock cannot produce information. A rock is what it is and we as agents in this world can assign information to describe attributes of the rock, but the rock itself cannot produce and convey a message.

Listen, ServantOfTheLamb, the phrase "the creation of information" says it all already. And YOU said it. Here is what it seem to mean: Information is created. But in a more scientific sense information is not "created" but GATHERED by significant EVIDENCE and not merely "created" by what ever you believe as being the case. Know what I mean? Your very own usage of terms already tell that your perception of reality, your world view, is not based on pure reason. And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have to, UNLESS you try to come across as scientifically educated which you seem to be just not.

Can't you see that what you argue is a justification of your lack of true real information? Nobody KNOWS for sure how the universe came about, but some have theories that are more likely than others.

Furthermore, would you say your mother CREATED you in her womb? Or is it more accurate to say that some kind of....what ever...did the "creation" of you in her womb? Know what I'm driving at? Just because you grow in her, does not mean she, your mother, "created" you. She just let it happen, right?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Why would God not be able to accomplish this?

We ourselves dont know how we were created. You argue against peoples belief based on your pessimistic and greater ignorance of God?

Thats cute.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is a lot of words and I don't feel like I understand the "christian world view" any better after having read it. In fact, as an ex-christian, I can just take my own past to know what the christian world view is like.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian
Why would God not be able to accomplish this?

Because "God dun it" isn't an answer, it's a cop out.

Tell me. Why wouldn't an invisible army of pink unicorns that's undetectable by any and all present and future technology that has an insatiable need to create universes by touching their horns together not be an equally valid claim as "god dun it"?

What evidence is there that your god is the one who did it, and not my army of invisible pink unicorns?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian
We ourselves dont know how we were created.

Actually, we know very well how Humans came to be.

The biological history of Homo sapiens is one of the most complete records in biology.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian
You argue against peoples belief based on your pessimistic and greater ignorance of God?

No. His argument doesn't stem from ignorance. His argument comes from the fact that all these rules of "this is how everything works" listed by the OP is applied to everything but his own answer, which is in itself completely illogical.

a reply to: Willingly

Okay. Understandable to want people to get to know your PERSONAL view better.

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?

That is a confusing statement. Because we all THINK about what our world is all about once in a while. That is what THINKING is supposed to be: Making sence of what we experience and solving problems we perceive as being the case. So nothing wrong with that.

I didn't say people couldn't think about what the world was about. 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.

So? What's wrong with assuming and judging about what reality is? What is your definition of reality anyway? Mine is, in the ultra-short version: Reality is species truth.

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.

Who is stuck in what box? WHO is the one who does not allow their thought processes to change? And what is logically coherent or not, is up to discuss in a particular discussion. THAT is what discussions in the realm or religion/spirituality are all about anyway. There is no logic in them, other than we, as the ones who discuss them, give it to

Just because I have put forth my opinions inside of the framework of my world view doesn't mean I am incapable of thinking inside another framework. 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. Honestly though no one has even come close. 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.

Formal logic, on the other hand, is something that is defined. But we certainly do NOT deal in formal logic here. Would you agree?

No I wouldn't agree. There are many philosophers atheist, deist, theist, ect. that use formal logic when discussing these scenarios. One example of the top of my head is Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument for God. Or Craig's Moral Argument for God.

a reply to: Willingly

Why...or...how comes you assume that it neccessarily must be some "entity" that is the creative force? Can't you imagine Creativity as such, without being some sort of entity?

An Entity is simply something that exist as itself. 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. 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. To answer your second question, no I cannot currently think of a way in which the universe could come into existence without a cause. 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.

a reply to: Rex282

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

a reply to: Ghost147

Excellent! Then you must have some objective source from where you get this information from. Feel free to cite.

What are you talking about? The only thing that would require empirical evidence are parts at which I utilize scientific knowledge as a tool when I am reasoning thru things. Most of what I said in the OP is pretty basic stuff, so I don't think there is that much to refute. The rest of it is based on Logic which is not something that I decide, but rather something humans have discovered by observing the world.

No. We do actually know what a singularity is. It's not some random guess of which has no evidence, and that was the entire point all together.

The definition of a singularity is a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole. So when you say there was a singularity somewhere you are talking about the math behind the physics.

Singularities show up often in theory, but you never find them in nature. When you are calculating something in physics and you find a singularity in the calculation then that means that there is a mistake, or you are calculating something that never happens, or there are physical laws or effects that haven’t been taken into account.

If we write an equation to determine how fast water is going down the drain it will look something like this, s=c/r. C would be the constant that has to with how fast the water is turning before you pulled the plug and r would be the distance to the center of the spin.

This equation implies that the water would be moving infinitely fast right over the drain. Nature, however has an out, by not being there. Anyone who has ever drained a bath tub has observed this out. If you go deeper under water nature will rely on things like turbulence or cavitation.

So lets look at a more obscure example. When calculating the energy of a charged particle’s electric field you will encounter another singularity in the equation that looks like "1/R". Yet again when observed we find that nature has a way out that being that on a quantum level electrons don’t exist in any one place, so the idea of getting infinitely close doesn’t really make sense.

So now lets get to the singularity at the center of a black hole. The singularity at the middle of a black hole comes into play when calculating the shape of spacetime near a spherical mass. Something like a star or planet doesn't have a singularity because this equation becomes invalid at their surface. So based on what we have observed I'd say what your calling a singularity is more of an I don't know area than you are pretending it is.....

Because you never asked "what was before the singularity", You made the assertion that "there was nothing before the universe". There was... and that's the singularity. Your view was inaccurate and based on a false premise.

Hopefully everyone can now understand why this statement is ignorant. Yes I made the assertion that natures way out of a singularity at its start is the same way out as when it spirals down the drain. It simply wasn't there. Why make that assertion because of reason...we know that when we reach the point of the singularity there is no space there is no time and there is no matter. These measurements are known as planck time and planck length. They are the first instance and area of our universe. If we say before that it loses meaning because we have begun talking about an instance in which there were no instances. Matter is defined as that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy. If there isn't a planck length there can't be matter so I don't see what you think you know...but a singularity is not some super descriptive word it just tells you that the math approaches infinity at that point.

Yes. It is possible that matter is eternal, and it is possible that matter is finite. We don't know.

First logical problems with this belief. If matter is eternal then the series of past of events is infinite. If the series of past events is infinite you could never, by successive addition, reach the instance in which you and I began our conversation. We have reached this instance therefore the series of past events are not infinite and as such matter could not logically be eternal.

Again I think empirical evidence is on my side here...The Radiation Echo, the Expanding Universe, General Relativity all of these things are in favor of finite matter. Of course this is all classical physics and may be subject to change in the near future.

Coherency is irrelevant. I can make up whatever I want and it could theoretically make sense. The only thing that matters if it's actually accurate or not. Coherency certainly doesn't beget truth

I don't think it is irrelevant. Truth is always coherent, but I completely agree that all coherent arguments/statements are not necessarily true. Any world view ask four necessary questions on Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. . These answers must be correspondingly true on particular questions and, as a whole, all answers put together must be coherent. So that is the importance of coherence. In my opinion in order for something to be true in needs to pass three test: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance.

What doesn't make sense is that you apply specific rules like "everything has a creator" "everything has a designer" "everything has an agent" "everything has information written by Agent Smith", All these rules of yours apply to every single thing, except for god.

Could you possibly misrepresent my position more.....

Except that I quoted you and showed you that you stated: "The entity is an agent, an agent does things in any environment, I believe the entity is an agent because the entity created everything

I never said that. I said the entity is an agent, which means it has agency(the ability to act in any given environment), and that information of they type I described in the OP is created by agents. You took information to mean everything. Words do not have an intrinsic meaning they have a purpose and that purpose is to express a message to another individual. When I define my words its not me making stuff up it is me being clear with my thoughts.

Nobody is familiar with your terms because you’ve made them up. You are the sole individual who is familiar with the terms you’re using.

You say this after I gave you the link to where the word came from you saw the link but you just couldn't resist a chance to make me seem as though I am just pulling stuff out of a hat proof you saw in quote below:

Excellent! Cite your claims next time.

BTW defining a word for people doesn't require me to cite anything...its simply me making sure you know what I mean by a particular sequence of characters...you could have read the definition in the OP and got the same understanding of what I meant.

a reply to: Ghost147

This is beyond psychotic. And where is the evidence of an ‘agent’ meddling with physics in order do achieve all these?

I am starting to question your reading comprehension... Seriously I just explained to you why what you said about rock and gravity are not examples of information being produced by nature.....

What is an eavestrough?: An eavestrough is eaves with a trough. Good job…

Defined agency in the OP troll...

a reply to: Willingly

Listen, ServantOfTheLamb, the phrase "the creation of information" says it all already. And YOU said it. Here is what it seem to mean: Information is created. But in a more scientific sense information is not "created" but GATHERED by significant EVIDENCE and not merely "created" by what ever you believe as being the case.

You misunderstood my position. You should go read the color analogy again.

Your very own usage of terms already tell that your perception of reality, your world view, is not based on pure reason. And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have to, UNLESS you try to come across as scientifically educated which you seem to be just not.

Ok you made a claim that my usage of terms shows my world view is not based on pure reason. Show that to be the case. Please present a reasonable argument to convince me that what you are saying is true.

Can't you see that what you argue is a justification of your lack of true real information? Nobody KNOWS for sure how the universe came about, but some have theories that are more likely than others.

Can't you see that this is just part 1? This is not something I can just say yup here is the answer. It is a cumulative case.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Can't you see that this is just part 1? This is not something I can just say yup here is the answer. It is a cumulative case.

Unfortunately, you haven't sufficiently made your case, here in part 1, to successfully move onto part 2.

a reply to: windword

Simply describing what I believe on a detailed level and the trolls love to eat

a reply to: windword

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

a reply to: Ghost147

Tell me. Why wouldn't an invisible army of pink unicorns that's undetectable by any and all present and future technology that has an insatiable need to create universes by touching their horns together not be an equally valid claim as "god dun it"? What evidence is there that your god is the one who did it, and not my army of invisible pink unicorns?

The moment you concede this to be the case you have to give up atheism and agnosticism in search of some form of theism or deism. Saying that yea your argument makes sense but could work for other gods to doesn't refute the argument it just means there would need to be a reason to as why that particular God or magical unicorn it doesn't take away the fact that the argument necessitates an agent. The case has not been made for any particular God but rather that what created the universe was an agent, but like anytime we investigate a claim we shouldn't just pick a God and say aha! That's the one. We should look for good reasons.

Actually, we know very well how Humans came to be. The biological history of Homo sapiens is one of the most complete records in biology.

Yes that is what four horse man fan club nazis like to say

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The moment you concede this to be the case you have to give up atheism and agnosticism in search of some form of theism or deism. Saying that yea your argument makes sense but could work for other gods to doesn't refute the argument it just means there would need to be a reason to as why that particular God or magical unicorn it doesn't take away the fact that the argument necessitates an agent.

I wasn't trying to refute the existence of a god with that remark. I was showing that making a claim "as a matter of fact" is illogical when making a point about gods powers and traits, when there is absolutely no way to confirm anything that has occurred is of a god, and certainly no way to confirm that it is a particular god.

To state "Well what's to say god couldn't do that?" is an comment to end the discussion, because there is no way to prove or disprove it.

It's a comment that has no substance, no weight to the argument at hand, provides nothing, and has infinite possibilities because it's unfalsifiable.

It's just a ridiculous thing to say in an argument involving facts and logic.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
The case has not been made for any particular God but rather that what created the universe was an agent

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

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
but like anytime we investigate a claim we shouldn't just pick a God and say aha! That's the one. We should look for good reasons.

And that's what we've done. And the conclusion is: 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.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes that is what four horse man fan club nazis like to say

Ever taken any medication? Eaten any foods grown from agricultural production? Ever worn any clothing that's anatomical or functions in a way to support anything physiologically?

Right... You can thank the study of Evolution for that.