Let's define "faith"

[True Scotsman]

Atheism is faith in the doctrines of doubt; although a transcendent phenomenon, life is ultimately meaningless. The doctrines of doubt are the remnants of the Lucifer rebellion, a high administrator who lost faith in the unseen Father.

Belief is ultimately a faith trust in the goodness and purpose of God, the first source and center of all reality.

My atheism is not the result of faith or of skepticism but of certainty. There is no such thing as Lucifer. I don't think I'll let you tell me what I believe and why I believe it today.

 

[True Scotsman]

Atheism is faith in the doctrines of doubt; although a transcendent phenomenon, life is ultimately meaningless. The doctrines of doubt are the remnants of the Lucifer rebellion, a high administrator who lost faith in the unseen Father.

Belief is ultimately a faith trust in the goodness and purpose of God, the first source and center of all reality.

Also, I believe that life is an end in itself and needs no "higher" sanction or purpose.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hebrews 11 is full of examples of people of faith from the Old Testament. 'By faith'...'By faith...', over and over. Worth reading!

 

[stevevw]

steve, I was being sarcastic when I said "But I guess you deserve credit for using 'the majority' of the inerrant, inspired book!" Without a method of quantifying the proportion of passages dedicated to what you consider the "quantum qualities of God," I have no way of knowing whether you or not you are using "the majority" of the Bible as you claim to be. What I do know, however, is that you are not using all of it, which is strange given that this is a book regarded as inerrant by many of its adherents.

Oh I thought you gave me some credit, oh well. I am using all of it. I just have to look for the qualities of God that are to do with creation or the quantum world. So you look for how the quantum world is described and then you look for that sort of thing in the bible that describe God. Its easy really. Thats how you normally do things dont you when researching any topic. Gods qualities like that are not in every part of the bible but are in many parts of the bible. There will be other things written that wont be talking about that in other places.

But I dont even need to prove that this is what the bible says about God anyway when I am talking about the quantum world. Like I said before think about the common understanding of the qualities of how most people think what God is. Isn't it stuff like He is everywhere and can be in all places at the same time. He can make things out of nothing. He made this material world and there is another realm that He lives in that will go on and is invisible. All these things are commonly known because that is what the bible says about God and that is the basic meaning that the bible says.

Did you even watch the video with Moriarty? What you just said is exactly what he is criticizing - quantum woo.

Teah hes talking about some scientists taking quantum physics to places where it shouldn't go. Into a realm beyond what it should be. But I said how does he know that. He is one scientist out of many that say something else. I mean most scientists say there is a multi universe and that there could be strange beings that were living in different world. They talk about holograms of people which are 2D pictures living in a flat world thats all 2D like something on our TV screens. Now come on and this is a common idea that is promoted by a lot of scientists. What is the difference between that and what Lanza and others are talking about.

If you want to discuss God as creator, then why not include all the Biblical passages that detail God as a creator? This would necessarily include Genesis, the vast majority of which (if not the totality) has been conspicuously absent from your analysis of the purported Biblical antecedents of modern cosmology.

Genesis doesn't really go into the qualities that much as far as describing them But if you think about it it had to take some incredible qualities for someone to do that. To be able to make something that wasn't there appear. To be able to make light and time which are associated with relativity which is something that scientists are having difficultly applying to the quantum world. So really all those qualities are there in the creation story but you just have to think about how God did it to see those qualities.

steve, reputations can be permanently tarnished by fabricating data. Grant money, especially when it is tied to public institutions, is placed at risk when scientists behave in a manner considered unethical and contrary to the public interest. That's partly why the scientific community has developed systems to ensure that research is conducted ethically, from study design, to implementation, to reporting.

But thats the tricky part. Its not necessarily seen that way in the science circles. When there is a general consensus about something then individual scientists can present things in that way without being scrutinized independently. The ones that are checking the work are the ones that believe that stuff in the first place. So its not always a case of if its true but if it fits in with the general consensus. Another thing is when you say that their jobs and funding is at risk if the falsify. Its actually that their reputations, jobs and funding is at risk if they dont come up with certain papers and discoveries that are showing certain achievements and backing what they already believe and say even if the evidence shows the opposite. Its widespread and getting worse. Scientists are subject to making false claims or making things look a certain way as much as anyone. I mean there are corrupt police aren't there.

The widespread acceptance of an atrocious manuscript, fabricated by an investigative journalist, reveals the near absence of quality at some journals.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic.../title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

Hundreds of open access journals, including those published by industry giants Sage, Elsevier and Wolters Kluwer, have accepted a fake scientific paper in a sting operation that reveals the "contours of an emerging wild west in academic publishing".
Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper | Higher Education Network | Guardian Professional

Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated.
The obligation to “publish or perish” has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat.
Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling”.
Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong | The Economist

By the way, I'm not going to go through and read all your copied-and-pasted material. I don't see the need, particularly given that it only bears a tenuous connection to the topic under discussion here. If you want to structure a conversation around material copied-and-pasted from creationist websites, then I will respond in kind by copying-and-pasting relevant refutations. However, that is hardly a productive conversation, and it will surely take us off track.

They are not creation sites. I like to backup what I say with support. The above support is well know and throughout many sites and none are religious. They are even from science sites.

But it's not the same as what we now know about the formation of the universe and our Earth. The Biblical account of these events is discordant with our scientific understanding of how they actually transpired. This isn't necessarily problematic from a purely theological perspective, but it is problematic if you want to claim that the Bible closely parallels the discoveries of science.

No I'm not saying that and as I said the bible is not a science book or sets out to prove things scientifically. I just am showing some interesting connections that I believe have some truth to them. I believe the closer science gets to looking at the start of life and the start of existence will find more and more unusual things that point to something beyond our reality and to the supernatural. Whether its God or something else I dont know. But the conventional scientific method will find it impossible to explain it or prove that it happens by a naturalistic process.

This brings us back to that question I keep asking, which you have yet to answer:

If the evidence that brings to bear eventually does support some naturalistic model of cosmogony, will you accept that model as probably true, or will you continue to insist that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is true? I keep asking this because it seems to me that, despite demanding evidence for current cosmological models, whatever evidence is brought to bear is ultimately immaterial to whether or not you accept or reject those models. You will reject them out of hand anyway because they do not support creatio ex nihilo. Your demand for evidence therefore seems disingenuous, as no amount of evidence will ever sway you to accept a model inconsistent with doctrine. Or am I wrong about that?​

Talk about copying and pasting. I have already answered this twice. Ok I will answer it this way for you. If science proved that existence was from a naturalistic method that is shown to be definite and can be verified then I would question my faith in God. It would put a big question mark on belief in a creator God of course. But thats only if it was shown that all of creation was made by a naturalistic method that didn't require a God. But I still cant figure out how they would prove that for sure. It would be like you seeing God in front of you and therefore proving that there is a God in which you would have to say that you then believed in God. Its a logical conclusion is it not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh I thought you gave me some credit, oh well. I am using all of it. I just have to look for the qualities of God that are to do with creation or the quantum world.

Which would include Genesis.

But I dont even need to prove that this is what the bible says about God anyway when I am talking about the quantum world. Like I said before think about the common understanding of the qualities of how most people think what God is. Isn't it stuff like He is everywhere and can be in all places at the same time. He can make things out of nothing. He made this material world and there is another realm that He lives in that will go on and is invisible. All these things are commonly known because that is what the bible says about God and that is the basic meaning that the bible says.

But it's not the same as what we know from quantum physics. The quantum world isn't "another realm," it's our world at a very small scale. Particles don't come into existence "out of nothing" at that level. And particles aren't invisible; they can't be seen with the naked eye but they can be detected by other means.

Teah hes talking about some scientists taking quantum physics to places where it shouldn't go. Into a realm beyond what it should be. But I said how does he know that. He is one scientist out of many that say something else. I mean most scientists say there is a multi universe and that there could be strange beings that were living in different world. They talk about holograms of people which are 2D pictures living in a flat world thats all 2D like something on our TV screens. Now come on and this is a common idea that is promoted by a lot of scientists. What is the difference between that and what Lanza and others are talking about.

Moriarty describes what the difference is. One is based on work in physics, the other on woo.

Genesis doesn't really go into the qualities that much as far as describing them But if you think about it it had to take some incredible qualities for someone to do that. To be able to make something that wasn't there appear. To be able to make light and time which are associated with relativity which is something that scientists are having difficultly applying to the quantum world. So really all those qualities are there in the creation story but you just have to think about how God did it to see those qualities.

You wanted to juxtapose the Bible's description of God as creator with the findings of modern science. Logically then, you would look for Biblical passages that describe God as creator and examine whether they correspond with the findings of modern science.

But thats the tricky part. Its not necessarily seen that way in the science circles. When there is a general consensus about something then individual scientists can present things in that way without being scrutinized independently. The ones that are checking the work are the ones that believe that stuff in the first place. So its not always a case of if its true but if it fits in with the general consensus. Another thing is when you say that their jobs and funding is at risk if the falsify. Its actually that their reputations, jobs and funding is at risk if they dont come up with certain papers and discoveries that are showing certain achievements and backing what they already believe and say even if the evidence shows the opposite. Its widespread and getting worse. Scientists are subject to making false claims or making things look a certain way as much as anyone. I mean there are corrupt police aren't there.

If the public perception of science is that we are all frauds and swindlers, then this decreases the likelihood that the public will favour legislation that financially advances scientific endeavour through grant schemes, which leads to a scarcity of funds in an already competitive grant environment. Ultimately, it is not in the best interest of the scientific community to allow unethical research practices to go on unchallenged, which is why, as I said, the scientific community has developed systems to address these issues. Do these systems operate perfectly and ensure the inerrancy of the scientific process? No, no one ever claimed that they would do so.

They are not creation sites. I like to backup what I say with support. The above support is well know and throughout many sites and none are religious. They are even from science sites.

You did link to creationist websites in your other post.

No I'm not saying that and as I said the bible is not a science book or sets out to prove things scientifically. I just am showing some interesting connections that I believe have some truth to them. I believe the closer science gets to looking at the start of life and the start of existence will find more and more unusual things that point to something beyond our reality and to the supernatural. Whether its God or something else I dont know. But the conventional scientific method will find it impossible to explain it or prove that it happens by a naturalistic process.

Which doesn't mean that positing something supernatural satisfies the question. This is yet another argument from ignorance: "Science will find it impossible to explain this phenomenon; therefore, Goddidit."

Talk about copying and pasting. I have already answered this twice. Ok I will answer it this way for you. If science proved that existence was from a naturalistic method that is shown to be definite and can be verified then I would question my faith in God. It would put a big question mark on belief in a creator God of course. But thats only if it was shown that all of creation was made by a naturalistic method that didn't require a God. But I still cant figure out how they would prove that for sure. It would be like you seeing God in front of you and therefore proving that there is a God in which you would have to say that you then believed in God. Its a logical conclusion is it not.

Good! Finally you answer the question! And I'm pleased to see that I was wrong, and you would indeed abandon creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Colter]

Also, I believe that life is an end in itself and needs no "higher" sanction or purpose.

Right, it is your "belief" but that doesn't make it so. Your pessimism is proof that you aren't entirely material, your observation is a transcendent phenomenon. And your certainty is in question in that you waste what little time you have, in a life with no meaning, debating the religious??

My experience has been that atheist do have a belief deep down inside their soul, they just don't believe what others believe, so they use the shortcomings of various theologies to avoid the issue.

 

[quatona]

My experience has been that atheist do have a belief deep down inside their soul,

You are having experiences deep down inside other people´s souls?? Wow.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your pessimism is proof that you aren't entirely material

False.

 

[stevevw]

Which would include Genesis.

[FONT=&quot]Yes and Genesis is full of the qualities of God that speak of the quantum world. I mean it is at this point God actually creates quantum physics. So there is no better time that that.

[/FONT]

But it's not the same as what we know from quantum physics. The quantum world isn't "another realm," it's our world at a very small scale. Particles don't come into existence "out of nothing" at that level. And particles aren't invisible; they can't be seen with the naked eye but they can be detected by other means.

[FONT=&quot]The quantum world points to things existing in another realm. That’s one of the reasons scientists have come up with hologram theory. They think that what we see isn't really the true reality of what existence is. It’s only a flat projected picture of our world. That there is something else beyond this, perhaps a consciousness that exists that is making those projections. The same with the multi universe theory. This is where there are other realm or world that exist and we are one of billions of them. In those other worlds/universes there could be another you or me living a slightly different existence. There could be monsters in them or strange activities happening that are totally out of this world. The physics would be different the laws of gravity would be different so they may be big and tall or short and flat. The list is endless. But this is what scientists are saying not me or religious people.

[/FONT]

Moriarty describes what the difference is. One is based on work in physics, the other on woo.

The problem is the very nature of working in quantum physics has a fine line between keeping to the strict parameters of the logical that is used in physics when they are looking at things in our reality. When you move into the quantum it goes into other realms. I have to keep coming back to what many scientists agree and talk about the far fetched theories they have made themselves. So the woo is being promoted by the mainstream scientists themselves. That might be because that is sort of what they are seeing. All Lanza is doing is taking it to another level and in a different direction. I can get you several well know respected scientists like scientists Brian Greene.
Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene Thinks You Might Be a Hologram
Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene Thinks You Might Be a Hologram | Underwire | WIRED

You wanted to juxtapose the Bible's description of God as creator with the findings of modern science. Logically then, you would look for Biblical passages that describe God as creator and examine whether they correspond with the findings of modern science.

Well not just any science because normally science would be conducted and show results that would contradict God. Its all testable and calculated. But when it comes to the quantum world it becomes more unpredictable and outside our reality. Thats because the quantum world is close to where existence comes into reality. So this is close to God because God is said to have created existence into being.

If the public perception of science is that we are all frauds and swindlers, then this decreases the likelihood that the public will favour legislation that financially advances scientific endeavour through grant schemes, which leads to a scarcity of funds in an already competitive grant environment. Ultimately, it is not in the best interest of the scientific community to allow unethical research practices to go on unchallenged, which is why, as I said, the scientific community has developed systems to address these issues. Do these systems operate perfectly and ensure the inerrancy of the scientific process? No, no one ever claimed that they would do so.

I agree that it cannot go on. But the fact is it does. And its not always as in the media or public view so they wont know about it all the time. It is done behind closed doors as well. Within closed circles and that is why it has taken some time for it to be exposed and come to light. But it will go on in many ways in the back ground because this is what the consensus is. If you are a scientists who goes against that and challenges the norm then you wont get far. In fact you will be looked down on. But what I was also trying to establish is that because it has been shown to be so blatant in some circles when it comes to some of the smaller studies they will get away with it more easier. It also shows how much it is happening and that what I said about many results being biased on the side of showing that what is already agreed is true then it is not showing the truth about results. So then people are presented with half truths and skewed info which is always promoting one side more than the other.

You did link to creationist websites in your other post.

well if I did my intention was not to have evidence from that side only if at all as I know that atheists jump up and down about it. The problem is your side can link any science site even if its one of the dubious ones I have been showing. But we cant list any site with the slightest connection to religion because its rejected even if its validated by science. The problem here is that most of the sites that are going to question the science are the ones like religious sites that also have scientists on them. So I find it biased to reject them on the basis of religious connection. This would not be done in any other walk of life. It would be classed as discrimination.

Which doesn't mean that positing something supernatural satisfies the question. This is yet another argument from ignorance: "Science will find it impossible to explain this phenomenon; therefore, Goddidit."

But the conventional scientific method will find it impossible to explain it or prove that it happens by a naturalistic process.
What I meant by this is that science will find it near impossible to explain their own findings with the quantum world. That is why they are coming up with some far fetched theories. This is the same as when believers put God forward as a possible theory. But the difference is science are quick and ready to accept these many far fetched hypothesis that have put forward with no evidence but wont allow anything remotely religious or to do with God to even get a foot in the door.

I havnt said that it must definitely be God that is the answer. I have said why cant we allow God as one of the hypothesis. But its like getting blood out of a stone. It seems the ctriteria for allowing these thing is tipped well in the science corner even if they have some pretty crazy ideas. Personally I think God is the answer but I would have a hope in getting that even glimpsed at with the wall that atheists put up. And its not all based on the fair and honest approach science claims they have that automatically looks for the truth. Thats just a cliche to protect themselves from having to play the game fair.

Good! Finally you answer the question! And I'm pleased to see that I was wrong, and you would indeed abandon creatio ex nihilo.

It is logical to say that if this was proven beyond doubt then I would have to question myself. But I know this wont be the case as I am sure of Gods reality in my life. I have already gone through that phase anyway and ended up doing full circle. But the question should be is if God was proven beyond doubt would you then believe in God. See I have this personal theory that as a believer I can accept life without God. Ive done it before.

But at the end of the day if its not true I dont have a lot to lose. But if He is true as an atheists you will have a lot more to lose. Its harder for an atheists to admit belief and stand before a God fully accepting that truth and position. It means giving up some power and control of your life. Its mean you are no longer the God of your own life. Even if belief in God wasn't true its not such a bad thing anyway. You have a good role model, have hope when there none, and there is evidence that it gives you a better life physically, mentally and emotionally. So whats the harm anyway.

 

[Colter]

You are having experiences deep down inside other people´s souls?? Wow.

Reading comprehension is needed to participate in online discussions.

My experience with Atheists and former Atheists is that they have a belief or God concept, they just don't believe in other peoples concepts of God.

 

[Colter]

False.

"To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness."

"The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe."


"If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

"The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic."

 

[True Scotsman]

Right, it is your "belief" but that doesn't make it so. Your pessimism is proof that you aren't entirely material, your observation is a transcendent phenomenon. And your certainty is in question in that you waste what little time you have, in a life with no meaning, debating the religious??

My experience has been that atheist do have a belief deep down inside their soul, they just don't believe what others believe, so they use the shortcomings of various theologies to avoid the issue.

So much wrong in two short paragraphs but let's start with what you got right!

You are absolutely right when you say "it is your "belief" but that doesn't make it so. True. That is the foundation of my whole world view, that believing something doesn't make it so. I hold that existence has primacy over consciousness. Unfortunately religions promote the opposite idea, that consciousness holds primacy and its corollary in epistemology, faith, and that is the idea that I am fighting most of all.

I never said I was entirely material. Where did I say that. You are putting words in my mouth. My philosophy, Objectivism, holds the axiomatic concept "consciousness" as one of it's four founding pillars. The fact is that in nature matter exists and so does consciousness. Consciousness however is not some separate entity but an action of living organisms and therefore is very much "this world" and not supernatural.

I don't think I'm wasting my time at all in discussing these ideas. I look at the world and I see that evil ideas are everywhere, like the primacy of consciousness, and they lead to horrible consequences. So it is in my self interest to fight them. Will I convince you? Probably not, but there might be someone reading these pages who has not yet totally abandoned reason and I might convince him or her. That is worth some of my finite time. If it wasn't I wouldn't be doing it.

Of course I have deeply held beliefs and I can validate and prove each one of them. I'm not avoiding any issues. I'm happy to tell what I believe and more importantly why. And as far as life having no meaning, speak for yourself. My life is brimming with meaning. I don't need some imaginary entity to give my life purpose and meaning. I have enough meaning and purpose to fill a hundred, no a thousand lifetimes. If you can't find meaning in life without a "higher power" to give it to you that is pathetic.

 

[Colter]

So much wrong in two short paragraphs but let's start with what you got right!

You are absolutely right when you say "it is your "belief" but that doesn't make it so. True. That is the foundation of my whole world view, that believing something doesn't make it so. I hold that existence has primacy over consciousness. Unfortunately religions promote the opposite idea, that consciousness holds primacy and its corollary in epistemology, faith, and that is the idea that I am fighting most of all.

I never said I was entirely material. Where did I say that. You are putting words in my mouth. My philosophy, Objectivism, holds the axiomatic concept "consciousness" as one of it's four founding pillars. The fact is that in nature matter exists and so does consciousness. Consciousness however is not some separate entity but an action of living organisms and therefore is very much "this world" and not supernatural.

I don't think I'm wasting my time at all in discussing these ideas. I look at the world and I see that evil ideas are everywhere, like the primacy of consciousness, and they lead to horrible consequences. So it is in my self interest to fight them. Will I convince you? Probably not, but there might be someone reading these pages who has not yet totally abandoned reason and I might convince him or her. That is worth some of my finite time. If it wasn't I wouldn't be doing it.

Of course I have deeply held beliefs and I can validate and prove each one of them. I'm not avoiding any issues. I'm happy to tell what I believe and more importantly why. And as far as life having no meaning, speak for yourself. My life is brimming with meaning. I don't need some imaginary entity to give my life purpose and meaning. I have enough meaning and purpose to fill a hundred, no a thousand lifetimes. If you can't find meaning in life without a "higher power" to give it to you that is pathetic.

I think its a fair, logical statement to say or assume that a conscious being transcends the purely material when he values an idea, when he discerns truth, beauty and goodness in an appraisal of any aspect of his or her environment. This consciousness of values comes from what we call God, it's just that humanists plagiarize those values as if they thought of them on their own or they are just a naturally occurring byproduct of chemical something or another in the brain.

I believe we can perceive spirit values because we are children of a transcendent spiritual being weather we acknowledge it or not. We are a chip off the ole block. The moon doesn't look at the earth and see beauty or ugliness, its not mind, it's not conscious.

If death and soul extinction is the crowning reward of all your life long striving for values, then after death your life still had no meaning. The finite is only potentially eternal. And if there is no ultimate truth beauty and goodness to strive for then there is nothing to contrast either one of our beliefs with, it's all for not.

"Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it."​

 

[Received]

Faith as trust or confidence seems to be the only definition that is most inclusive to other facets of the term, either secularly or spiritually.

I have faith in someone if I trust them or have confidence in them as a person. This means I take what they say seriously, and (importantly) act as if I took it seriously. There's no such thing as faith here without action; faith always involves inclinations of the will, without which you're just representing something (believing) and not having faith.

Of course, Biblically the same Greek morpheme "pist" is used for "faith" and "to believe". But we've warped the meaning of "belief" to mean how we represent something conceptually, clearly a post-enlightenment influence.

Having faith in God means acting as if God exists as you represent him to be.

 

[variant]

Faith as trust or confidence seems to be the only definition that is most inclusive to other facets of the term, either secularly or spiritually.

Having faith in God means acting as if God exists as you represent him to be.

If and only if we ignore what most christian theologians say about how one acquires faith.

 

[True Scotsman]

I think its a fair, logical statement to say or assume that a conscious being transcends the purely material when he values an idea, when he discerns truth, beauty and goodness in an appraisal of any aspect of his or her environment. This consciousness of values comes from what we call God, it's just that humanists plagiarize those values as if they thought of them on their own or they are just a naturally occurring byproduct of chemical something or another in the brain.

I believe we can perceive spirit values because we are children of a transcendent spiritual being weather we acknowledge it or not. We are a chip off the ole block. The moon doesn't look at the earth and see beauty or ugliness, its not mind, it's not conscious.

If death and soul extinction is the crowning reward of all your life long striving for values, then after death your life still had no meaning. The finite is only potentially eternal. And if there is no ultimate truth beauty and goodness to strive for then there is nothing to contrast either one of our beliefs with, it's all for not.

"Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it."​

You keep talking about the "purely material" but man is an integration of matter and consciousness. If logic is the recognition of reality then how is it logical to propose that consciousness comes from some other realm that is outside of nature. You look at nature and see that living organism are conscious and that man finds value in life and sees beauty and you conclude that these things are not natural. On what basis? Because you can't imagine it? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Because you would prefer consciousness to be supernatural? As we have already established, the truth is objective. It is not dependent on feelings, likes, dislikes or preferences.

"I believe we can perceive spirit values because we are children of a transcendent spiritual being weather we acknowledge it or not. We are a chip off the ole block. The moon doesn't look at the earth and see beauty or ugliness, its not mind, it's not conscious."

On what objective basis do you believe this? Do you think it makes sense to compare the moon which is not a living organism to man who is?

"If death and soul extinction is the crowning reward of all your life long striving for values, then after death your life still had no meaning. The finite is only potentially eternal. And if there is no ultimate truth beauty and goodness to strive for then there is nothing to contrast either one of our beliefs with, it's all for not."

No. After my death my life ceases to have meaning for me but my actions still effected others and have meaning to them. Einstein's life still has meaning today. His discoveries are still effecting life today and so do the the discoveries of Ayn Rand have profound meaning for many thousands of people like me and likewise with Aristotle. The idea that because our lives are finite that they are meaningless is absurd. Why can't life be an end in itself? Why can't life be the ultimate truth and beauty that we strive for?

"Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it."

This is combining the man made with the metaphysically given. The two are not analogous.

The idea that the universe was created by a god violates the primacy of existence principle and is false. If you want to believe that the universe was created by a god then you do so by faith and not by reason which pretty much illustrates what I said about faith being a war on reality.

 

[Received]

If and only if we ignore what most christian theologians say about how one acquires faith.

Oh yeah, I haven't responded to your thread yet, have I?

 

[variant]

Oh yeah, I haven't responded to your thread yet, have I?

No idea (I think it was your thread)(and checking now no), but you seem quite happy to continue your line about faith.

Of course, Biblically the same Greek morpheme "pist" is used for "faith" and "to believe". But we've warped the meaning of "belief" to mean how we represent something conceptually, clearly a post-enlightenment influence.

One would think that you would take pause and be less brazen in trying to smuggle pre-enlightenment epidemiological assumptions into your arguments.

Today's Christianity is generally a child of the enlightenment too, so it's hard to take seriously attempts to redefine words to remove enlightenment influences.

The new christian apologetic seems to be about doing whatever it takes in grasping for a legitimacy that it simply doesn't bother earning.

 

[Colter]

You keep talking about the "purely material" but man is an integration of matter and consciousness. If logic is the recognition of reality then how is it logical to propose that consciousness comes from some other realm that is outside of nature. You look at nature and see that living organism are conscious and that man finds value in life and sees beauty and you conclude that these things are not natural. On what basis? Because you can't imagine it? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Because you would prefer consciousness to be supernatural? As we have already established, the truth is objective. It is not dependent on feelings, likes, dislikes or preferences.

"I believe we can perceive spirit values because we are children of a transcendent spiritual being weather we acknowledge it or not. We are a chip off the ole block. The moon doesn't look at the earth and see beauty or ugliness, its not mind, it's not conscious."

On what objective basis do you believe this? Do you think it makes sense to compare the moon which is not a living organism to man who is?

"If death and soul extinction is the crowning reward of all your life long striving for values, then after death your life still had no meaning. The finite is only potentially eternal. And if there is no ultimate truth beauty and goodness to strive for then there is nothing to contrast either one of our beliefs with, it's all for not."

No. After my death my life ceases to have meaning for me but my actions still effected others and have meaning to them. Einstein's life still has meaning today. His discoveries are still effecting life today and so do the the discoveries of Ayn Rand have profound meaning for many thousands of people like me and likewise with Aristotle. The idea that because our lives are finite that they are meaningless is absurd. Why can't life be an end in itself? Why can't life be the ultimate truth and beauty that we strive for?

"Any scientific interpretation of the material universe is valueless unless it provides due recognition for the scientist. No appreciation of art is genuine unless it accords recognition to the artist. No evaluation of morals is worth while unless it includes the moralist. No recognition of philosophy is edifying if it ignores the philosopher, and religion cannot exist without the real experience of the religionist who, in and through this very experience, is seeking to find God and to know him. Likewise is the universe of universes without significance apart from the I AM, the infinite God who made it and unceasingly manages it."

This is combining the man made with the metaphysically given. The two are not analogous.

The idea that the universe was created by a god violates the primacy of existence principle and is false. If you want to believe that the universe was created by a god then you do so by faith and not by reason which pretty much illustrates what I said about faith being a war on reality.

That the natural creation reflects the nature of the creator doesn't make me at all uncomfortable, for in him we live and have our being. The logical fallacy of your proposition is that a mind conscious of values was created by mindless matter, that requires more faith and frankly makes a mockery of logic.

Rand and Einstein are dead to the world, while it is true that they contributed to the advance of culture and science, which is good to the extent that it enriches further generations of the potential survivors, this world has an end. Our world will have served its purpose as the experiential scaffolding of the ascending sons of God. The humanist will be forgotten, not every acorn becomes a tree.


"If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation." UB

 

[True Scotsman]

That the natural creation reflects the nature of the creator doesn't make me at all uncomfortable, for in him we live and have our being. The logical fallacy of your proposition is that a mind conscious of values was created by mindless matter, that requires more faith and frankly makes a mockery of logic.

Rand and Einstein are dead to the world, while it is true that they contributed to the advance of culture and science, which is good to the extent that it enriches further generations of the potential survivors, this world has an end. Our world will have served its purpose as the experiential scaffolding of the ascending sons of God. The humanist will be forgotten, not every acorn becomes a tree.


"If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation." UB

You keep claiming that the universe was created by a conscious mind in direct contradiction to the facts of reality (the primacy of existence). You affirm this principle every time you say God exists, since presumably you are not saying this is true because you want it to be true. No you are saying that it is a fact and is true regardless of anyone's conscious desires or preferences. Then in the content of your claim you affirm the antithesis of the primacy of existence, the primacy of consciousness. You are claiming two contradictory metaphysics and you say you are not at war with reality?

OK, if contradictions can exist then I'll say that the existence of God is true for you but not true for me. You should not have a problem with this statement since in your world there can be two different realities. If you say no, it is true for you Scotsman whether you like it or not because reality does not conform to your wishes, you affirm the very principle that you reject when you claim that the universe was created by God. So how do you reconcile the contradiction?