-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
An Open Question
- Thread starter Quantum Obscurity
- Start date
You told me to try looking at my argument through the possibility of love being an immaterial cause. My entire argument is that immateriality is myth and therefore so is God.
Upvote
0
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Not very conclusive at all.
In fact I see no reason to believe that way with the evidence you have shown me. I am someone who has to prove it all for myself
Could you repeat that proof here and now, please?
Upvote
0
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
This is irrelevant on two counts.
Firstly, even if EddyMabo is being hypocritical, that is utterly separate from whether he is right.
Secondly, even if it is the fault of humans that things aren't being improved, that doesn't mean that God wasn't aware of that in advance and is still doing nothing determinable to help those who are innocently suffering, so the point about neglect still stands.
(And frankly, it's charitable to take the second objection that seriously. God can help, and he could help us far more than we ever could at our current stage. But that's not what we see, or if it occurring somewhere (which would need proof), it's not happening widely enough. And really, does god have to have the prerequisite level of ego-stroking before he'll help? If a medic refused to help people until you complimented him enough while you lay there bleeding, he'd be struck off in no time, so why make exceptions. Btw, if your response to that last one is "don't judge god in human terms / by human standards" or whatever - save it. I've sat through enough trite parental analogies for God to know that Christians are perfectly content to draw simple analogies with humans when they're talking about things that portray their god in a favourable light)
Sorry, run that by us again? You know for sure that minds are immaterial, do you?
Personally, I think the fact that we have no evidence of minds that aren't grounded in time and space makes the presumption is far more telling against this particular argument.
Upvote
0
Start with Love. Even if you don't believe in it, test your argument through the eyes of Love anyway. See what happens.
You have said that you believe that Love comes from the brain. Does it? Test your assumptions. What do others say about that. What do the Mystics say?
I don't know if this is true, I don't see where you have said one way or another, but to me it almost looks like you tried to fit your argument to the conclusion you had already developed before hand.
.
Upvote
0
2 Points.
1. All you are suggesting is that I change my conclusion to disagree with everything I have so far stated, you are essentially trying to change my argument to suit yours.
2. No, I spent an entire year studying different aspects of philosophy, looking though different theories on the origination of knowledge, free will, persons, etc. I changed how I thought as different possibilities were presented to me. At first I believed in free will, then I became determinst. At first i believed in souls, then I rejected substance dualist. At first I followed rationalism, then I thought through it and changed to empiricism.
Through this tedious process I have eliminated the other modes of thought and arrived at a conclusion myself. Please do not accuse me of not thinking things through. As I have said, I'm a philosophy student, I don't just agree with things before figuring out my own arguments.
Upvote
0
dysert
Member
It could just be me, but I've read every post in this thread. I still haven't seen your "logical argument explaining why material and immaterial things could not interact." Would you mind pointing me to the post number please?
The Bible does not say that the earth is 6000 years old.
The Bible doesn't say that dinosaurs didn't exist.
If I may be so bold, one of the problems you're having is that you're claiming the Bible says things that it doesn't say. Since the Bible is pretty important to the Christian belief system, please at least be honest enough to stick to what the Bible actually says. In the previous two examples, therefore, if you're going to claim that the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old, just cite the book, chapter, verse where such a claim is made. Similarly, if you're going to claim that the Bible says dinosaurs didn't exist, cite the book, chapter, and verse where such a claim is made.
Upvote
0
At no point during creation were dinosaurs made, nor were the referenced at any point in the bible, should the dating be right, they would have had to co-exist with humans.
Catholic preists have traced the bible dates back and pinned "creation" to approximately 6000 years ago, hence the vast majority of creationists believe the earth to be 6000 years old.
Upvote
0
I'm still left wondering where the testing of your own thesis through the eyes of Love is and if you have even tried that. And have you tested what the Mystics have to say about Love through your lens.
If you can, I'd like to hear what you have to say with this test: In looking at a mother's bonding Love for her new born child, with in the essence of her Love for her baby, there is a power that is unique. How does that kind of Love fit into your thesis?
.
Upvote
0
Incredibly simple. Natural chemical sequences that occur in the brain of all animals. Nothing supernatural is involved whatsoever, it is a perfectly explainable, natural, material sequence of events. All animals have this in some form or another. Love is simply an instinct, hardwired into our brains.
"Who hardwired it then, must be god"
No. It simply occured because species that protected their young were more likely to survive. i.e. Evolution.
Upvote
0
I'm using post#12 as a starting point. Instead of looking at the physical (which is just energy) as the bases of your argument, just for grins to test your own thesis try popping in the energy of Love and see where it leads you. I'm trying to be careful to not come to any conclusions here. Your conclusions are yours to know and experience, not mine.
.
Upvote
0
Yep. Feel that mother's Love for her newborn child. There's substance and depth to it. Love is very alive. Ask the poets about that. Also look to see what the Mystics say as well.
.
Upvote
0
GrayAngel
Senior Member
Hello, Quantum. I love philosophy, so I think we're going to get along fine. I'm glad that your intentions are pure, as a lot of others post here just to try to prove us wrong, not looking for any real give-and-take discussion.
I can write some lengthy philosophy-ish topics to defend Christianity or my thoughts on certain issues. Is there anything in particular you would like to talk about?
As I'm sure you're well aware, different Christians will give different responses depending on their personal beliefs and opinions. I still find this annoying when I attempt to discuss apologetics, as there is always someone coming to accuse me of a "strawman" and offer me their alternative view as the only true viewpoint of their side.
A is true. *Destroys A*
It's not A, it's B. *Destroys B*
It's not B, it's C!
So to avoid doing that myself, I'm just going to start by trying to make my own viewpoint as clear as possible from the very beginning.
I'm a Baptist, and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy, however, does not mean that we are to take every detail in it literally. I consider the creation story to be written for a purpose, and a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and the exact order in which it occurred was not it.
I do, however, acknowledge that there are some errors in our modern day translations. The original Bible was perfect, but people later came along and added new stuff to it that wasn't meant to be there. There's also the problem of the fact that the Hebrew and Greek languages do not always translate well into English, and neither does ancient culture make sense to those of us who live in modern-day Western culture. This could lead to some confusion for us. Fortunately, we have experts whose job it is to make the true meaning of scripture more clear. The number of resources available today are simply amazing. And I honestly believe that once these problems are taken account of, no Biblical contradiction will be left standing.
Generally, I don't believe that science and religion are truly at odds at one another, either. The Bible teaches us on spiritual matters, about God, salvation, etc. Science is the study of the physical world and can't say anything about what can't be touched, smelled, tasted, heard, or seen. There's not much intersection there.
I also believe in predestination and consider free will to be one of the many myths that plagues modern Christianity. While I don't believe that one must believe in predestination to be saved, one's view on the subject drastically affects the rest of their theology. For example, if you ask a free will proponent why God allows evil in the world, they'll say that evil is our fault because God is just letting us exorcise our free will. Someone like me will say that God has a purpose for evil and that He's tolerating it at the moment because it is necessary.
Upvote
0
MrMoe
Part-Time Breatharian
the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs cause the word dinosaur wasn't invented until 1841 by Richard Owen. there are literally millions of animals that the bible doesn't mention. the bible is interested in human stories not name checking every animal that god ever created.
dinosaurs were created on the six day along with every other creature that roams the earth.
catholic priests are mostly idiots. a few hundred years ago they believed the earth was the center of the universe even though the bible never says that. the catholic church makes up a lot of stuff that isn't in the bible.
Upvote
0
The only thing ridiculous is stating the bible has no contradictions.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
