| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2009 10:49:49 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
and about the brokeness of the world. |
Wow. Interesting. I never think of the world as broken. Guess its just how one looks at things. |
Ya, I'll echo Richard. You view the world as whole? What do you make of all the suffering in the world? Is it as it is or should it be otherwise? |
No, I don't regard the world as fixed, either. The world is in a constant state of becoming and will continue to do so long after humans are gone. All the suffering you perceive is human related and they are such as small part of the whole. The earth at least, as I have no experience of the rest of the universe, is like water always seeking its own level. Sometimes its smooth and quiet, other times turbulent.
What possibly of the world is broken and needs to be fixed (and who is able to fix it), unless you see it only from an anthropocentric point of view? If something is out of balance, the earth will fix itself; I assume the universe is the same.
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 11:41:51 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
Beta version?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2009 11:49:07 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
Beta version? |
I thought that was the pre-Flood version ... |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 11:53:33 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
Beta version? |
I thought that was the pre-Flood version ... |
That was Universe.0, we are on Universe.1 and still waiting for the latest update to fix the current brokenness which is Universe.2 |
|
|
|
09/26/2009 11:59:17 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
Beta version? |
I thought that was the pre-Flood version ... |
That was Universe.0, we are on Universe.1 and still waiting for the latest update to fix the current brokenness which is Universe.2 |
But will the Universe 2.0 standards adopted by the ISO be those proposed by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs ??? ;-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 12:01:57 AM · #406 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
Beta version? |
I thought that was the pre-Flood version ... |
That was Universe.0, we are on Universe.1 and still waiting for the latest update to fix the current brokenness which is Universe.2 |
But will the Universe 2.0 standards adopted by the ISO be those proposed by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs ??? ;-) |
Well, by the way things have been done thus far I would imagine it would be the Bill Gates version, ship it and fix it later...:-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 12:20:39 AM · #407 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Undetectable" and "unknowable" to you mean exclusivly in the realm of Science and the scientific method. I feel I can detect God through personal revelation and know God through rational thought. I understand though that those concepts qualify as "absurd" in your view. |
Little voices inside your head are the basis for belief in bigfoot, mermaids and Santa Claus. It's among the worst possible ways to inspire group belief, as it literally leaves no way to distinguish between the real and the imagined. If someone ran up to you today and claimed that Orxnik the Almighty had revealed himself and commanded that he do {whatever}, you'd think he was a loon. If he was willing to die for it, you'd think him an even bigger loon. Yet some people WILL believe it, and that's exactly what happens in cults all the time— very likely the genesis of every religion to date. The offspring of those believers grow up knowing only that "truth" and tend to distrust alternatives. The children of the recent Texas polygamy sect were a case study in this effect.
Coercion, fear and lifelong indoctrination are far more effective tools for inspiring belief. The simple fact that you don't "hear" Ahsonnutli, those believers don't "hear" Allah, and nobody before Roman times "heard" God points inexorably toward indoctrinated personal fantasy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's interesting you are so underwhelmed by your "in the beginning" phrase because it's more or less exactly what Scientists theorize happened. Some random fluctuation in a Higgs field caused the Big Bang to spring from "nothingness". I guess I'm unsure why it would be underwhelming to apprecaite an intelligence who would have the power to manifest such an action. |
At this point you're making up your own religion. If there's one thing the Bible is very clear on, it's that God is/was far more than a finger on the cosmic dominoes. All those stories about Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, water into wine, healing the sick, people becoming pillars of salt, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. go out the window when you limit God to being completely immaterial and undectectable.
Message edited by author 2009-09-27 00:41:49. |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 12:54:26 AM · #408 |
honest question.
is it possible to choose what you believe?
As noted in  Rossbilly's original post, there is a difference in beliefs btwn those of the southeast US and the west coast. seems obvious that location plays a part in what you believe.
Of course our beliefs are shaped by our environment but do we really have any beliefs of our own?
Message edited by author 2009-09-27 01:12:22. |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 01:37:38 AM · #409 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Undetectable" and "unknowable" to you mean exclusivly in the realm of Science and the scientific method. I feel I can detect God through personal revelation and know God through rational thought. I understand though that those concepts qualify as "absurd" in your view. |
Little voices inside your head are the basis for belief in bigfoot, mermaids and Santa Claus. It's among the worst possible ways to inspire group belief, as it literally leaves no way to distinguish between the real and the imagined. If someone ran up to you today and claimed that Orxnik the Almighty had revealed himself and commanded that he do {whatever}, you'd think he was a loon. If he was willing to die for it, you'd think him an even bigger loon. Yet some people WILL believe it, and that's exactly what happens in cults all the time— very likely the genesis of every religion to date. The offspring of those believers grow up knowing only that "truth" and tend to distrust alternatives. The children of the recent Texas polygamy sect were a case study in this effect.
Coercion, fear and lifelong indoctrination are far more effective tools for inspiring belief. The simple fact that you don't "hear" Ahsonnutli, those believers don't "hear" Allah, and nobody before Roman times "heard" God points inexorably toward indoctrinated personal fantasy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's interesting you are so underwhelmed by your "in the beginning" phrase because it's more or less exactly what Scientists theorize happened. Some random fluctuation in a Higgs field caused the Big Bang to spring from "nothingness". I guess I'm unsure why it would be underwhelming to apprecaite an intelligence who would have the power to manifest such an action. |
At this point you're making up your own religion. If there's one thing the Bible is very clear on, it's that God is/was far more than a finger on the cosmic dominoes. All those stories about Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, water into wine, healing the sick, people becoming pillars of salt, virgin birth, resurrection, etc. go out the window when you limit God to being completely immaterial and undectectable. |
No no no. We are getting caught up in your immaterial and undetectable. I do think God manifests his power through miracles and have said as such in this thread. I just said they would never be provable as miracles as the materialist would always have "wiggle room" to claim "not enough information" to prove it as a bona fide miracle. |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 01:42:07 AM · #410 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
What possibly of the world is broken and needs to be fixed (and who is able to fix it), unless you see it only from an anthropocentric point of view? If something is out of balance, the earth will fix itself; I assume the universe is the same.
I wonder, if the Christian God created the universe, why would he allow it to be broken? Why wouldn't he fix his creation if he perceived it to be broken? |
A) I do see the world from an anthropocentric view despite its size.
B) God felt Free Will was important enough to risk breaking. (at least that's one explanation)
C) He has provided a solution for fixing his creation and has promised it will be restored at some point when his plan is complete.
Those are all, of course, just my opinion. I understand not everybody subscribes to it.
Let me ask you a question. If man did not exist, would the universe still be striving toward oneness with God? Anticipating a possible response, does your answer matter whether there is ANY sentient life in the universe? |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 01:50:16 AM · #411 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Intelli:
I am good because someone taught me to be good.
Hitler was bad because someone taught him to think badly. |
I like the direction of the thread as it is, but this is too rich to pass up. We all know we don't always act good. I don't. You don't. So is that because you choose to do bad or because someone taught you to think badly? |
once you believe that a certain behavior is "bad" you still have to believe that it matters whether or not you do it. if you don't believe the behavior has dire enough consequences then you choose between your own personal desires and any perceived negative consequences. |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 08:57:29 AM · #412 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me ask you a question. If man did not exist, would the universe still be striving toward oneness with God? Anticipating a possible response, does your answer matter whether there is ANY sentient life in the universe? |
The universe isn't striving towards oneness with God. It is one with God. It is God. Humans, however, have forgotten; they strive to remember. Man is less than a drop in the bucket in the universe; to assume the universe requires man for its existence is to display an ego of such gigantic proportions, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. It is man's ego that causes man's suffering in the world. There was a time when man did not exist and there will be a time when man ceases to exist - the world doesn't begin and end with man.
To answer your second question, I would need to know how you define sentient. What is the minimum required for sentience? |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 02:02:57 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No no no. We are getting caught up in your immaterial and undetectable. I do think God manifests his power through miracles and have said as such in this thread. I just said they would never be provable as miracles as the materialist would always have "wiggle room" to claim "not enough information" to prove it as a bona fide miracle. |
So now you appear to be backing out of your own claim that God only makes imperceptible interventions that confound detection. A miracle along the lines of turning water into wine or parting the Red Sea would certainly be provable as such if it were to occur. The question with those has always been whether the event happened at all rather than whether it was demonstrably a miracle. Your argument of imperceptibility and the immaterial is moot when it comes to miracles— they are actual events said to occur right here in our world, subject to witness and measurable effect.
Just last week, a group of missionaries were backed against a cliff face by jaguars, but because they were the chosen ones, the mountain parted and allowed them to escape before closing on the jaguars. It's a miracle! Right... God doesn't do that anymore because nobody would buy such an easily disproved story. Modern knowledge limits modern miracles to feats of chance. The earth isn't going to stop or reverse direction tomorrow, and the lone survivor of some disaster will be hailed as a miracle while the thousands of others who weren't so lucky will be forgotten. While you may argue that there can be no evidence for the unknowable, I counter that acceptance of extraordinary events that ARE knowable without evidence is cuckoo. You should have stayed with the butterfly effect. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2009 02:59:52 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me ask you a question. If man did not exist, would the universe still be striving toward oneness with God? Anticipating a possible response, does your answer matter whether there is ANY sentient life in the universe? |
The universe isn't striving towards oneness with God. It is one with God. It is God. |
Why not just call it one with the universe? Why even use the God label?
|
|
|
|
09/27/2009 03:10:53 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let me ask you a question. If man did not exist, would the universe still be striving toward oneness with God? Anticipating a possible response, does your answer matter whether there is ANY sentient life in the universe? |
The universe isn't striving towards oneness with God. It is one with God. It is God. |
Why not just call it one with the universe? Why even use the God label? |
Makes others more comfortable. Also, most people think of the universe as...I don't know...a bunch of things, much like a box of rocks. They don't think of it as a unity, a wholeness, a complete self-sufficient entity if you will. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:47:54 AM · #416 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Makes others more comfortable. Also, most people think of the universe as...I don't know...a bunch of things, much like a box of rocks. They don't think of it as a unity, a wholeness, a complete self-sufficient entity if you will. |
So I'm still honestly unclear about your idea here. Does the universe manifest any sort of purpose or striving? Can we think of it as some sentient entity? If the answer is no to both how is this different from the Materialist view? Or is it?
Message edited by author 2009-09-28 00:55:51. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 12:55:32 AM · #417 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No no no. We are getting caught up in your immaterial and undetectable. I do think God manifests his power through miracles and have said as such in this thread. I just said they would never be provable as miracles as the materialist would always have "wiggle room" to claim "not enough information" to prove it as a bona fide miracle. |
So now you appear to be backing out of your own claim that God only makes imperceptible interventions that confound detection. A miracle along the lines of turning water into wine or parting the Red Sea would certainly be provable as such if it were to occur. The question with those has always been whether the event happened at all rather than whether it was demonstrably a miracle. Your argument of imperceptibility and the immaterial is moot when it comes to miracles— they are actual events said to occur right here in our world, subject to witness and measurable effect.
Just last week, a group of missionaries were backed against a cliff face by jaguars, but because they were the chosen ones, the mountain parted and allowed them to escape before closing on the jaguars. It's a miracle! Right... God doesn't do that anymore because nobody would buy such an easily disproved story. Modern knowledge limits modern miracles to feats of chance. The earth isn't going to stop or reverse direction tomorrow, and the lone survivor of some disaster will be hailed as a miracle while the thousands of others who weren't so lucky will be forgotten. While you may argue that there can be no evidence for the unknowable, I counter that acceptance of extraordinary events that ARE knowable without evidence is cuckoo. You should have stayed with the butterfly effect. ;-) |
I still believe such miracles happen, although I agree they are uncommon. But I also believe that if God showed up in front of you, did a trick, then disappeared, you (and many others) would rather recede to the refuge of believing it was hallucination rather than an event that required you to change your mind. Hence the wiggle room. Chance will be another ultimate refuge. Technically resurrection, the localized reversal of entropy, is possible, but it's really, really, really unlikely. Likewise, an electron belonging to a particular atom can be located anywhere in the universe, it's just very unlikely you will find it outside it's particular cloud's domain. The materialist can always claim such events are bizarre chance rather than breaking the Laws of Nature.
So in the end I believe that God can directly interfere with the world in drastic ways (which we may call Miracles) and he can also guide events in non-drastic, imperceptible ways. Neither is likely to be accepted by the Materialist as he will never be absolutely backed into a corner. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:20:23 AM · #418 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the end I believe that God can directly interfere with the world in drastic ways (which we may call Miracles) and he can also guide events in non-drastic, imperceptible ways. Neither is likely to be accepted by the Materialist as he will never be absolutely backed into a corner. |
Here is where I have had a problem with Christianity, on one hand you state god has given you free will yet on the other hand you imply that he interjects in our world from time to time. Don't you see a contradiction in these statements and beliefs? |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:30:17 AM · #419 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the end I believe that God can directly interfere with the world in drastic ways (which we may call Miracles) and he can also guide events in non-drastic, imperceptible ways. |
But doesn't an interventionist god fall foul of the 'all powerful', 'all loving', 'all knowing' paradox?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:36:55 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I also believe that if God showed up in front of you, did a trick, then disappeared, you (and many others) would rather recede to the refuge of believing it was hallucination rather than an event that required you to change your mind. Hence the wiggle room. |
Are you saying you would automatically accept it's a miracle by God? What if  graphicfunk never explain how he did this shot? Could it be grounds for a miracle? If you say no, what criteria are you using to reject it?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Chance will be another ultimate refuge. Technically resurrection, the localized reversal of entropy, is possible, but it's really, really, really unlikely. Likewise, an electron belonging to a particular atom can be located anywhere in the universe, it's just very unlikely you will find it outside it's particular cloud's domain. The materialist can always claim such events are bizarre chance rather than breaking the Laws of Nature. |
So as a non-materialist you reject the idea of chance completely, correct?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the end I believe that God can directly interfere with the world in drastic ways (which we may call Miracles) and he can also guide events in non-drastic, imperceptible ways. Neither is likely to be accepted by the Materialist as he will never be absolutely backed into a corner. |
What's an example of a miracle that you believe was real (i.e. carried out by God), but materialists reject?
Message edited by author 2009-09-28 01:39:13.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:45:34 AM · #421 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the end I believe that God can directly interfere with the world in drastic ways (which we may call Miracles) and he can also guide events in non-drastic, imperceptible ways. Neither is likely to be accepted by the Materialist as he will never be absolutely backed into a corner. |
Here is where I have had a problem with Christianity, on one hand you state god has given you free will yet on the other hand you imply that he interjects in our world from time to time. Don't you see a contradiction in these statements and beliefs? |
Maybe God is like the dealer in a card game. He's stacking the deck, but the players in the game still have free will once they get the cards. They can choose to play them or fold.
Message edited by author 2009-09-28 01:46:22.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:56:19 AM · #422 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in the end I believe that God can directly interfere with the world in drastic ways (which we may call Miracles) and he can also guide events in non-drastic, imperceptible ways. Neither is likely to be accepted by the Materialist as he will never be absolutely backed into a corner. |
Here is where I have had a problem with Christianity, on one hand you state god has given you free will yet on the other hand you imply that he interjects in our world from time to time. Don't you see a contradiction in these statements and beliefs? |
Maybe God is like the dealer in a card game. He's stacking the deck, but the players in the game still have free will once they get the cards. They can choose to play them or fold. |
if that's the case, i feel like i'm working with a pair of deuces at best. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 01:58:19 AM · #423 |
| To Richard: No. I don't know. Probably not. Because I know enough to know how it was done. No. The resurrection of Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:04:04 AM · #424 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe God is like the dealer in a card game. He's stacking the deck, but the players in the game still have free will once they get the cards. They can choose to play them or fold. |
Actually that's not too bad from what I've come up with. Basically I would say we have "limited free will" (that's a phrase coined by me and nobody else). God is in control enough so that the outcome of the world will be exactly as he ordained. However, we can run our life pretty well how we want. Nobody has enough power to thwart the ultimate will of God. In fact, even if everybody tried to gang up on God, we wouldn't be able to change the final outcome. He's like the juggler who has a million balls in the air, but he's good enough to make adjustments every time some ball crashes into another. (that's probably a poor analogy)
So we can make our own lives easier by swimming with God's current, or we can make our lives harder by swimming against it. But in the end, we all wind up where the current takes us.
(I know that's far too loosey-goosey for lots of people on this thread. :) Take it or leave it.) |
|
|
|
09/28/2009 02:13:19 AM · #425 |
I know that last response is going to get about a zillion unsatisfied responses, so I'll just try to head things off at the pass.
Is an electron a wave or a particle? The answer is neither, but sometimes it helps to think of things one way or another. Is God in control or am I in control? The answer is "yes". Sometimes it helps to look at it more one way than another. Of course the most important question this concerns (to a Christian at least) is about salvation. I've decided it matters how you look at it; quantitatively or qualitatively. What do I bring to the deal of salvation? The answer is me, which quantitatively counts as something. Compared to God, what do I bring to the deal of salvation? The answer is very, very, very little, which qualitatively counts as nothing.
Clear as mud? |
|
