Ask God for Me

[muichimotsu]

I didn't say we know for certain, but every day more evidence points in that direction. I would hardly call that a leap in logic. It is very simple basic logical reasoning, called the law of causality. I didn't say utter nothingness. God has said that it is just not detectable by humans, read Hebrews 11:3. This verse has been confirmed by science.

You interpret the evidence, that isn't something objective, you have to demonstrate and argue that point substantively rather than just inferring

Science doesn't deal in metaphors when talking about reality except to try and convey it in a less technical manner. And merely having some incidental agreement with the bible is the lowest standard you could have to suggesting the bible speaks any meaningful truth, because even a broken clock is right 2x a day

Most cosmologists believe it was the absolute beginning of space, time, and matter. But I am not saying we know with absolute certainty. It is one part of multiple lines of evidence for the existence of a personal Creator.

Appeal to authority is not an argument, you have to substantiate that and you can't, no one can because it's speculative until we can investigate it. It isn't evidence for it unless you reject any other explanation out of hand because you implicitly don't want there to not be a personal creator: it's called confirmation bias

 

[Ed1wolf]

I never said we were identical to animals and even biologically, we are distinct, but taxonomically, we are demonstrably animals, we have those basic traits of multicellular eukaryotes, distinct from the other 5 kingdoms in regards to such traits like plants and fungi or bacteria.

I also never claimed animals were equivalent in the particular capacity humans have or that they're morally equal in being agents, rather than patients. And I also didn't invoke the term person, that was you, obfuscating the issue by prattling on about your doctrine that's irrelevant to basic biological truth in regards to the term that people seem to just use willy nilly otherwise and ignore anything contrary because it would affect their preconceptions that animals are basically worthless or only useful pragmatically to humans (dominion over the earth and all)

Creation is a loaded term, because it already assumes a creator and agency when it isn't necessary to explain biological phenomena.

Nevertheless, only humans are personal beings, ie fully created in the image of the Creator. No Biblically literate Christian believes that animals are worthless or only useful pragmatically to humans. The biblical concept of stewardship of the earth means we are to take care of all of Gods creatures, even ones we may not like. And that we can learn from them, read the book of Job.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Our perceptions are not absolute, you're continuing to assert things that cannot be proven, because humans are necessarily fallible and not possessing absolute knowledge to make such claims as if they're just self evident or common sense.

Our perceptions may not be absolute but there is absolutely no evidence that energy is alive and that is proven as far as we can tell. And our individuality IS self evident and solidly based on common sense.

 

[Ed1wolf]

My replies have been in response to your post #111 in pointing out that the Hindu image of God is much closer to Physics than is the Christian image of God. That's all.

In what way? I dont see that at all.

db: As a Lover of God though, I'm unable to separate the Divine expression of Life Energy from the energy in the Universe that flows between worlds. That dynamic breath of Life-Force, as seen from the spiritual setting in which I sit, flows through the whole of the Cosmos.

But as I stated, there is no evidence that that energy is alive. Another problem with Hinduism is the universe becomes personal ie a subject, thereby destroying the possibility of physics and its laws because it is not objective. For science to work there has to be an objective reality. Hinduism pretty much destroys that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And...animals have Consciousness. Which really is what I believe it's all about, way less so than it is about our physical bodies.

Some animals have consciousness but they dont have full personhood, ie, a rational mind, a true will, moral conscience, and emotions.

 

[Ed1wolf]

That's not true.

According to most cosmologists it is true. It is called a singularity.

 

[muichimotsu]

Nevertheless, only humans are personal beings, ie fully created in the image of the Creator. No Biblically literate Christian believes that animals are worthless or only useful pragmatically to humans. The biblical concept of stewardship of the earth means we are to take care of all of Gods creatures, even ones we may not like. And that we can learn from them, read the book of Job.

I never claimed my cat was a personal being, you're insinuating things that weren't part of my argument at all

"Take care" is fairly relative when humans are effectively at the top of the food chain. And Job boils down to fatalism, practically speaking, you don't question God because God holds your life in its hands, practically speaking and your obedience will ultimately reward you. I do want to reread it eventually, it's fairly short and also an interesting example of dialectics in a book usually relegated to preaching about God's greatness with no real contrary ideas.

Don't the gospels effectively prove my point in part that the birds (and other animals by association) are far less important to God than us? Matthew 6:26 in particular

 

[muichimotsu]

Our perceptions may not be absolute but there is absolutely no evidence that energy is alive and that is proven as far as we can tell. And our individuality IS self evident and solidly based on common sense.

You can't absolutely claim that without absolute knowledge. "As far as we can tell" means your conclusions must be provisional in nature

Common sense is all too common, it isn't evidence in itself, it's tautological fallacy

 

[Ed1wolf]

I never claimed my cat was a personal being, you're insinuating things that weren't part of my argument at all

"Take care" is fairly relative when humans are effectively at the top of the food chain. And Job boils down to fatalism, practically speaking, you don't question God because God holds your life in its hands, practically speaking and your obedience will ultimately reward you. I do want to reread it eventually, it's fairly short and also an interesting example of dialectics in a book usually relegated to preaching about God's greatness with no real contrary ideas.

Don't the gospels effectively prove my point in part that the birds (and other animals by association) are far less important to God than us? Matthew 6:26 in particular

I am not sure exactly what your point is, but yes, they are less important, because humans are made in his image and therefore of infinite worth. If your point is that they are less important, then that is true. But that does not mean they should be mistreated, especially the more intelligent ones that can have a relationship with humans.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You can't absolutely claim that without absolute knowledge. "As far as we can tell" means your conclusions must be provisional in nature

True, not absolutely but so far all the scientific evidence has not shown that it is alive. But my point is that as the worldview that founded modern science, Christianity is backed by science more than any other worldview or religion.

mm: Common sense is all too common, it isn't evidence in itself, it's tautological fallacy

I didn't say that common sense proves anything but it could be evidence especially combined with the self evident fact of individuality.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am not sure exactly what your point is, but yes, they are less important, because humans are made in his image and therefore of infinite worth. If your point is that they are less important, then that is true. But that does not mean they should be mistreated, especially the more intelligent ones that can have a relationship with humans.

Something cannot have infinite worth to an infinite being, mostly because infinity is not an actual quantity in the first place, so it's metaphorical spin and hollow appeals to pathos

We should treat animals humanely, I don't need to think of them as lesser than me in a cosmic scale as a god regards them, only that they don't have the mental capacities I do. But in contrast, I don't have their sense of smell or hearing or flexibility, and they also do have a basic ability to feel, to have sentient experience of pain, so treating them with kindness follows reasonably from that, rather than requiring a command from a deity that we are to "steward" the world, as if that declaration has any weight from a mere story

 

[muichimotsu]

True, not absolutely but so far all the scientific evidence has not shown that it is alive. But my point is that as the worldview that founded modern science, Christianity is backed by science more than any other worldview or religion.


I didn't say that common sense proves anything but it could be evidence especially combined with the self evident fact of individuality.

So far is based on a necessarily limited perspective, you can't make claims that are throwing out other explanations without sufficient justification for why they are not needed rather than less likely (which is not the same as useless)

I never claimed the universe was alive, or that energy was alive in the sense of biological life, that's strawmanning as if that's the only alternative. Even if I agree energy isn't alive that doesn't follow to anything regarding the existence of a deity or a soul or such supernatural things that are basically unfalsifiable in how they're described

Christianity is "backed" by science insofar as people quote mine or selectively interpret science to fit notions that they wouldn't take seriously from any other religion. In short, confirmation bias tends to be how you "back" Christianity with science, treating the Bible as a scientific text rather than a narrative rooted in superstition and fantasy

Individuality is not self evident, that's circular reasoning, because the self is a perception of an individual, it's not something independently verifiable without more complex technology. You're hitting upon the solipsistic issues and don't appear to realize that you're digging yourself into a hole in suggesting that because we perceive something and it "makes sense" that we shouldn't consider any other explanations because they would counter that "common sense" perception we have.

 

[muichimotsu]

According to most cosmologists it is true. It is called a singularity.

Pretty sure that's not what a singularity is described as, it's super compressed matter and energy that would still have time and space affecting them, just on a scale we don't understand at present because of the Planck time and other problems that come up in investigating black holes and related phenomena to the singularity

 

[Ed1wolf]

Something cannot have infinite worth to an infinite being, mostly because infinity is not an actual quantity in the first place, so it's metaphorical spin and hollow appeals to pathos

I didn't say we have infinite worth to an infinite being, I was referring to our worth to our fellow human beings is infinite because we reflect the image of an infinite being. That is why murder of humans of any age is such a serious thing.

mm: We should treat animals humanely, I don't need to think of them as lesser than me in a cosmic scale as a god regards them, only that they don't have the mental capacities I do. But in contrast, I don't have their sense of smell or hearing or flexibility, and they also do have a basic ability to feel, to have sentient experience of pain, so treating them with kindness follows reasonably from that, rather than requiring a command from a deity that we are to "steward" the world, as if that declaration has any weight from a mere story

It depends on the animal whether they have those characteristics. Obviously insects dont have those characteristics. The reason you dont require a command to steward the world is because you were raised in a Christian society and were engendered with that concept from a young age. There is strong evidence that it is not a mere story, there is strong evidence that it is a propositional communication from the creator of the universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Pretty sure that's not what a singularity is described as, it's super compressed matter and energy that would still have time and space affecting them, just on a scale we don't understand at present because of the Planck time and other problems that come up in investigating black holes and related phenomena to the singularity

Not according to award winning physicists like Arno Penzias who said "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing....."

 

[muichimotsu]

I didn't say we have infinite worth to an infinite being, I was referring to our worth to our fellow human beings is infinite because we reflect the image of an infinite being. That is why murder of humans of any age is such a serious thing.

We cannot have infinite value to finite beings: infinity is not a quantifiable thing, I don't think you remotely read my qualification in regards to that term and just speak as if it's common sense, when it's demonstrably not

It depends on the animal whether they have those characteristics. Obviously insects dont have those characteristics. The reason you dont require a command to steward the world is because you were raised in a Christian society and were engendered with that concept from a young age. There is strong evidence that it is not a mere story, there is strong evidence that it is a propositional communication from the creator of the universe.

My being raised in a Christian society is immaterial to whether I see a justification in that story at all because I'm not beholden absolutely to my background in terms of how I understand the world at present having long apostasized. You're speaking as if this is just an immutable fact, but we are not fatalistic entities, there are influences and we can weed them out, including indoctrination or a lack of critical thinking or knowledge about the world. I don't regard myself as a steward of the world either, you don't get to dictate what I think based on limited conversation

You don't get to question beg a creator into the discussion, you have to demonstrate that with evidence, which is not merely that something seems to be that way from your perspective, that's purely subjective

 

[muichimotsu]

Not according to award winning physicists like Arno Penzias who said "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing....."

Quote mining doesn't help, nor does appeal to authority. Nothing in science is not necessarily what you understand it to be, I'd be hesitant to make such grandiose claims unless you can actually substantiate what is intended by the person stating it in some detail, otherwise you're making a hasty generalization that happens to fit your own conclusion instead of striving for objectivity and critical thinking that values falsification over confirmation bias

 

[dlamberth]

Our perceptions may not be absolute but there is absolutely no evidence that energy is alive and that is proven as far as we can tell.

When I experience the energy of Love, I'm awakened to substance that has texture, is vibrant and is very much alive.

It's the same when I experience the energy of the Life Force/Spark of Life that runs through all of this Creation

And it's the same when I experience the consciousness that also runs through all of this Creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wonder if anyone here who can talk to God in prayer would ask God what they could say to me to convince me He exists and post it here if they get an answer.

I actually have put up prayers for such a demand two times in the last few decades. The first one was when I was very close to several atheists/non-believers on a board I frequented. They were important to me and we were in a very deep conversation and I found myself asking God to tell me what to say to them. I prayed regularly about this during this thread and suddenly and without asking again, I heard the message I was to convey to them, "tell them I love them".

The second time was a person who had a very specific way in which he wanted God to act to show His existence. I did pray about it but God remained silent.

I find that in your thread you gave away something that is very important to your request; you have said that things you once thought were of God weren't really from God. I have to ask, how do you know?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I actually have put up prayers for such a demand two times in the last few decades. The first one was when I was very close to several atheists/non-believers on a board I frequented. They were important to me and we were in a very deep conversation and I found myself asking God to tell me what to say to them. I prayed regularly about this during this thread and suddenly and without asking again, I heard the message I was to convey to them, "tell them I love them".

Why doesn't he show us he loves us instead of telling us for a change.

I find that in your thread you gave away something that is very important to your request; you have said that things you once thought were of God weren't really from God. I have to ask, how do you know?

I don't. I have no evidence to believe that they were from God. I believed they were at the time becasue of bad evidence. When I realized it was bad evidence then I stopped believing. Give me sufficient evidence to believe God exist and I will have to believe. Do you have any?