• 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.

Atheism makes no sense to me?!?

Legal_Eagle

Wisdom and Courage through Faith
Site Supporter
May 22, 2011
561
55
✟72,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
ToHoldNothing:

"Not to mention, you seem to be focusing far too much on the past and future as the manifestations of infinity, when even by a Christian philosophical perspective, time is always in flux, since the present is always moving towards the future and movign from the past, both of which don't technically exist as the present truly exists in the moments it goes to and from into future from past."

Why would you say that Christian philosophy holds that time is in flux. I do not believe that. Time is a finite measurement, in my opinion, encompassed within that of God. In my view, time is likened to a subway line with a difinitive starting and end point. We all board and exist that train at varying stops along the route. However, God is neither on that train or subjected to the constrains of those track. Rather, God is present at all points before, along and after that measured journey. There is nothing "in flux" as I see it.
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Christianity saying God is infinite does not mean Christianity does not say time is infinite. Time is in flux, through Augustine's observation, because the present is the only thing that is close to real, but it is always fluxing into the future of new present moments. Andthe present is also becoming the past as it fluxes away into our memories. Either our mind remembers something or it anticipates the eventual thing that might occur, that, coupled with our present and fluctuating experience of time as present moments that link into each other by the relation of past and future chains, shows that time is not linear so strictly and cannot be so easily measured as we tend to think.

God as present in all times becomes something troubling to me, in that it is intertwined with the flux, which makes me think you propose a pantheistic God, considered heresy in Catholicism/Orthodoxy and false teaching in Protestantism. There would need to be qualifications about this God before further investigation
 
Upvote 0

Legal_Eagle

Wisdom and Courage through Faith
Site Supporter
May 22, 2011
561
55
✟72,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Augustine had religious and a political purpose to his work, which included incorporation of many factors surrounding Jewish philospohy and the teachings of the Roman Empire. I do not agree with his beliefs that time is in flux, though who am I to argue with such a legendary person ;) I am certainly not proposing a pantheistic God, in any sense. By being beyond the bounds of time, why would that make God symbotic with the universe and nature? I think you misunderstood my analogy. In my opinion, God exists in all times at once, as the Alpha and the Omega. God is all knowing, and therefore knows all the outcomes of all decisions all people have and will make. In my subway analogy, God is present at all points and all stops simultaneously at the same moment, because God is beyond time. God is not subjected to the linear nature of our existence, which dawns in reality on our present. That does not mean that I do not believe in free will. However, God does know the outcome of everything that has and will occur in this existence. That is what I believe is meant by having your name written in the Book of Life. Your salvation is already known, even if the actions of your life have not presented themselves to you yet.
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
I never said Augustine's authority made him more truthful. As much as I disagree with his theology and general conclusions about the supernatural, I cannot but concede he has a brilliant mind, especially for his time.

If God is beyond time, then God cannot logically be associated with time in any way except in a vaguely spectator sense, watching things go by like a movie screen. Unless your God is PANENtheistic, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on unless you start proposing hypertime as what God is actually involved in, not mundane time like everyone else experiences. But the fact that God experiences some form of time means it doesn't transcend time, so you're back where you started with problems of God transcending something it's supposed to also be within.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟33,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why? If there is no infinite God or universe, than we are left with the premise that there was an infinite nothingness, from which randomly and without initiation this universe occurred, and to which into nothingness it will again disappear. Please explain to me what evidence of anything we know, are and/or experience as human beings explains that? It defies the laws of physics, it defies our understanding of space/time and it defies all religious models. Once again, IF that is your premise for reality, what do you have, other than speculation, which would directly, indirecly or even causally support that preposition?

You have to remember that if there was any point where the universe did not exist, then spacetime and the laws of physics did not exist either. Cause and effect are a property of our universe, but the universe as a whole is not necessarily subject to it. As for evidence, this has been posted a few times in this thread already, but for me it is largely speculation, simply because there is no definitive evidence that leads to a conclusion. The Big Bang model suggests to me that the universe is finite, and there is no evidence that leads to the conclusion that any creator exists, simply because the logic that is used to justify a creator can be used to justify a finite universe. If there can arbitrarily be an uncaused creator, then there can equally be an uncaused universe.

Also, I want to point out that the universe doesn't have to ever end. It can continue indefinitely, and never be infinite. You can't count to infinity.
 
Upvote 0

Legal_Eagle

Wisdom and Courage through Faith
Site Supporter
May 22, 2011
561
55
✟72,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
ToHoldNothing:

Why does the existence of God have to be all or nothing in regards to the timeline. Why can't God be both a spectator outside of time and an interacting force within the timeline (such as through the Holy Spirit). Couldn't the Christian Godhead offer three entities that each interact differently in regards to time itself? Also, why does God need to approach the event horizon of time like the rest of us? Why does there even need to be mundane or hypertime in the equation? Just curious what you think about that.
 
Upvote 0

novembermike

Newbie
May 19, 2011
9
1
✟22,637.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The basic issue is that that isn't what "science" believes. Science simply says that we have a possible explanation for what happened near the beginning of the universe, but it's quite possibly wrong and we lack many of the tools to make real measurements of what happened that far back. It's basically just a couple of (very good) guesses. Religion on the other hand just says "A dude did it".
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why does the existence of God have to be all or nothing in regards to the timeline. Why can't God be both a spectator outside of time and an interacting force within the timeline (such as through the Holy Spirit). Couldn't the Christian Godhead offer three entities that each interact differently in regards to time itself? Also, why does God need to approach the event horizon of time like the rest of us? Why does there even need to be mundane or hypertime in the equation? Just curious what you think about that.

Because it creates a contradiction of metaphysics. If something is outside time and space, it cannot therefore interact with time and space without violating the previous standard of being outside time and space. Unless it vicariously sends messengers to time and space and then they communicate stuff to it, in which case, it would at least be consistent. But if it just slips between dimensions, then it cannot be said to be solely one way or the other, but would instead be a veritable Hermes, going between realms of gods and humans.

If the Godhead has three entities each interacting in different ways, then you believe in three gods, no matter how you try to slice it. Unless they're three forms of a single entity, in which case we're back to square one of something that violates its standards of supposedly being outside time and space and yet goes into it on a regular basis

Mundane or hypertime would be the only way you could qualify that God exists in "some" space and time without contradicting any kind of metaphysics where something needs time and space to actually exist in some conceivable way.
 
Upvote 0

Legal_Eagle

Wisdom and Courage through Faith
Site Supporter
May 22, 2011
561
55
✟72,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Couldn't you argue that the Holy Spirit is that messenger being sent through time and space? I also do not agree that believing in three entities of the Godhead makes for three Gods. Why can't they be three different manifestations of the same entity in different dimensions?
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Couldn't you argue that the Holy Spirit is that messenger being sent through time and space? I also do not agree that believing in three entities of the Godhead makes for three Gods. Why can't they be three different manifestations of the same entity in different dimensions?

Because you are picking and choosing when "God" is "in time and space," which makes for inconsistency
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I am posting this thread because I would like some honest feedback as to my beliefs on this subject from an informed community. My issue, is that Atheism, by it's very nature, makes absolutely no logical sense to me. Let's assume, for a moment, that there is NO empirical proof of God, other than faith. Even if this is the case, Christians and Atheists share some basic assumptions about reality:

1) Our physical existence on this world is finite
2) The universe, as we know it, is finite

I make this point in full recognition of the works of the likes of Stephen Hawkings. Even under modern String Theory, the Big Bang may have required no actual energy from God to begin, but the mass still had to come form SOMEWHERE. That is the case even if time is relative, as you get closer to the Big Bang event.

(reply) That’s where you are going wrong; you can’t assume all atheists share the same views on science so you are starting off in the wrong direction. The remainder of your post continues down this wrong direction so I dismissed it.

You should never assume we all march in “lockstep” behind the words and ideas of Stephen Hawkins or even Science, the only thing you can assume is that we lack belief in all God’s; even yours. And when you can figure out how you can so easily dismiss the possibility of all the other Gods that people worship; maybe just maybe you can understand how we can dismiss the possibility of even yours.

Now does that make sense to you?

Ken
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Couldn't you argue that the Holy Spirit is that messenger being sent through time and space? I also do not agree that believing in three entities of the Godhead makes for three Gods. Why can't they be three different manifestations of the same entity in different dimensions?
There can be, but that is modalism, and stands apart from traditional Trinitarianism.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It's rather late in the game, but this is my response to the OP:

I am posting this thread because I would like some honest feedback as to my beliefs on this subject from an informed community. My issue, is that Atheism, by it's very nature, makes absolutely no logical sense to me. Let's assume, for a moment, that there is NO empirical proof of God, other than faith. Even if this is the case, Christians and Atheists share some basic assumptions about reality:

1) Our physical existence on this world is finite
2) The universe, as we know it, is finite

I make this point in full recognition of the works of the likes of Stephen Hawkings. Even under modern String Theory, the Big Bang may have required no actual energy from God to begin, but the mass still had to come form SOMEWHERE. That is the case even if time is relative, as you get closer to the Big Bang event.
Actually, even though you don't explain what you mean by "The universe... is finite", we have little evidence that the universe is 'finite' in any sense of the term - we cannot see to its furthest reaches, so we don't know if it's spatially finite, we cannot probe before the start of the Big bang, so we don't know if it's temporally finite, we cannot know the distant future, so we cannot know if it is eternal, etc.

If you look at the Christian and Atheist viewpoints, they both share one similar viewpoint. Most Christians believe some form of Aristotle's "Prime Mover" Theory. Namely, that a finite time-driven universe was created by an infinite being outside of the space-time context. That is God, however your define him/her/it/etc.
That's a rather modern way of putting it, and I doubt most Christians are even aware of Aristotle, let alone his Five Ways - the impoverished in Africa and suchlike are unlikely to have read classical literature.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe that the Universe is an infinite thing that exists outside of the space-time context.
No, they do not. First, being an atheist is nothing more than not affirming the existence of any deities - apart from that, an atheist can believe whatever he wants. He can believe the universe is no bigger than the observable horizon several miles away, he can believe the universe popped into existence last Thursday, he can believe it was created by intelligent beings known as pixies. It is incorrect to attribute these beliefs to a group of people defined only by their lack of belief in a single, unrelated proposition (namely, the existence of God).

Either God or the Universe are infinite entities that do not have a logical creator, and do not conform to our finite sense of time. TO NOT believe in and infinite God or Universe is completely illogical, as it contradicts our very existence.
So you claim. Many people would disagree with you, however. Moreover, one can quite easily simply reject the notion that the universe is an "infinite entity that does not have a logical creator", without affirming the opposite. "I don't know" is still a perfectly valid position to take, and indeed it is the logical one to take in the absence of any evidence. Also, see my previous point; you are attributing very specific beliefs about the nature of the universe quite fallaciously.

Whether it is God or the Universe, Atheists and Christians must both have faith in the infinite nature of something they cannot comprehend, because we are finite in our thinking.
Nonesense. Even if what you say is true (and as I've explained, it's not), the atheist must believe in an 'infinite' universe (whatever that means) - meaning it's the logical stance to take, according to you. Thus, there is nothing absurd or faith-based in it.

Here is where the absurdity of Atheism comes into play for me. While we cannot scientifically test the existence of God, we can test our universe using the laws of physics. To my knowledge, there is no scientific unified "Theory of Everything" that can prove that the universe is infinite. While it may be great, there is a limited amount of mass in this and every other conceived dimension (ten I believe in current String Theory). The universe is also in motion. Even if time is relative, SOMETHING must have placed the universe in motion. All matter responds to cause and effect, though not always predictably.
Again, you're throwing out scientific-sounding terms without really understanding their meaning. You also make the bald and unsubstantiated assertion that "something must have placed the universe in motion" - what makes you think that? I can only conclude that it is your desire to force atheists into a position of faith by creating a false dichotomy. You also assume that the existence of deities cannot be tested - have we not tested for the existence of Thor and Jupiter, and found them lacking in the creation of lightening? Have we not tested for the existence of Neptune and Poseidon, and found them lacking in the movement of the waves?

Why then, do Atheists believe in something they cannot see, based on faith (the universe as an infinite thing), yet they KNOW there is no God.
Since that is not what atheists believe, your question is moot.

That is a presumption that CANNOT be tested in any scientific manner. Whether you follow the teaching of Descartes, Intelligent Design, Calvin, or any other philosophical evidence of God, there seems to me to be far more evidence of a God, than there is of an infinite universe.
I'm sorry, didn't you just say that we can't test for the existence of God? What evidence, then, are you referring to?

Throw in N.D.E's, the power of prayer, supernatural experiences and the like, and there seems to be a wealth of evidence the there is, at the least, more than just our consciousness in this existence.
How so? NDE's and supernatural experiences are purely subjective experiences, and entirely based in the concious mind - how can they be evidence of something beyond the concious mind? As for the power of prayer, I welcome you to cite verifiable accounts of prayer resulting in the healing amputees.

On the contrary, an Atheist claims to KNOW that there is nothing more than an infinite universe, based on what? Faith? Gut instinct? A jaded view of the world? That is where the utter absurdity of Atheism plays a me. I do want everyone to know that I do have faith that places me as a Christian, and not just an agnostic. I apologize for such a long intro. Any insights form anyone would be welcome!
It seems you find atheism to be an absurd, faith-based position based on a fallicious understanding of what atheism means. Nonetheless, why does your perception of it as faith-based make it troublesome? Isn't your position also faith-based? If faith-based positions are to be reviled, why are you not reviled at your own Christianity? I'm not saying you should be, I'm just puzzled at this apparent double-standard.
 
Upvote 0

Legal_Eagle

Wisdom and Courage through Faith
Site Supporter
May 22, 2011
561
55
✟72,052.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It is truly puzzling that a person associating themselves as a Wiccan and posting a pentagram as their profile picture would even seek to enter a Christian Forum, much less demand a response. Do you simply seek to antagonize Christians with that symbolism? Perhaps we should find a picture of Salmon Rushdie and chastise Islam on Ummah.com?

As to your points. Whether or not Christians or impoverished Africans have heard of Aristotle is completely irrelevant to the truth of the logic behind his argument. Show me one instance in science or physics that is NOT cause and effect related? Show me one instance in science or physics that does not draw on the concept of matter in terms of Quantum Field Dynamics? No matter how you slice it, everything in existence that we have seen or studied is cause and effect related. As an Atheist, you deny the existence of God. Fine. That leaves you with only four logical choices as to creationism. Either you believe:

1) That the universe was created spontaneously from nothingness and is infinite from the point of existence
2) That the universe was created spontaneously from nothingness and finite from the point of existence; from whence it will resort back to nothingness
3) The universe is infinite and has always existed, but will someday cease to exist
4) The universe is infinite and will always exist

As an atheist you have the luxury to say "I don't have to believe anything". That may be acceptable to you, but it is not sufficient on a discussion site devoted to Christianity. I implore you to justify any non-Christian creationist model that does not fall into one of these four categories. If you ascribe to a purely scientific approach to our understanding of the universe, 1) and 2) above are illogical. There is no empirical evidence of spontaneous creation and dissolution of matter in the universe into nothingness. Talk about believing in something based solely on faith! So, you are left with the choice of 3) or 4). The problem therein is that science has justified the case and effect argument of Aristotle's prime mover theory. So which is it? A belief contrary to logic of a universe that existed without creation (whether it ends or not), or the belief in a God that existed without creation? You've painted yourself into your own dichotomy! You base your disbelief in God on an unsubstantiated faith in the immutability of science. I place mine on faith in the immutability of God and an Intelligent Design to the universe. Either way, you are basing your world-view on faith.

BTW, how did we test for the existence of Thor or Jupiter? Haven't heard about that one.

As for Modalism, I should have added "One God in three co-existent persons", instead of "manifestations". My bad. It's part and parcel to writing while suffering from a crappy summer cold.

Jason
 
Upvote 0