Question

[Freodin]

You do know that which is known about God is evident within you? ... God made it evident to you. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, Gods eternal power and divine nature, have been shown to you, being understood through what has been made, so that YOU are without excuse. For even though YOU knew God, YOU did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but YOU became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, YOU became a fool, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man. YOU exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and serve the creature rather than the Creator.

And, to come back to where it all started: here is another of the nonsense things that are, for me, evidence that Christians get it wrong.

On the one side, we have a Christian who tells me what I really think and know and believe, and how I act... BECAUSE GOD TOLD HIM SO IN HIS HOLY WORD!

On the other side we have... me. The person who, of all people in the world, knows best what I think... who in many many cases is the only person who knows what I think and believe.

I am not an expert in biology or physics or chemistry. Not even in history, language, philosphy or mathematics.

But I am the world leading expert on ThoughtsOfFreodin.

 

[-57]

And, to come back to where it all started: here is another of the nonsense things that are, for me, evidence that Christians get it wrong.

On the one side, we have a Christian who tells me what I really think and know and believe, and how I act... BECAUSE GOD TOLD HIM SO IN HIS HOLY WORD!

On the other side we have... me. The person who, of all people in the world, knows best what I think... who in many many cases is the only person who knows what I think and believe.

I am not an expert in biology or physics or chemistry. Not even in history, language, philosphy or mathematics.

But I am the world leading expert on ThoughtsOfFreodin.

You can deny the truth all you want. In fact there has been several avenues of proof presented...and you failed to reduce them to absurdity.
The funny thing is you haven't presented one reason as to why there is no reason to believe in God.

 

[-57]

Or perhaps you could just admit that people can believe illogical things.

I can admit to that. I can use you as an example.

 

[Freodin]

You can deny the truth all you want. In fact there has been several avenues of proof presented...and you failed to reduce them to absurdity.
The funny thing is you haven't presented one reason as to why there is no reason to believe in God.

Read my last post. You claim that I deny the truth. You basically call me a liar... and because your faith depends on it, there is nothing I can tell you to convince you.

But I know the truth. I know that what you say is false.

I might not claim to know what you say about your God is false. I might not claim to know what you say about your "avenues of proof" is false. I don't believe it, that's all... and I can give reasons for that.

But in this case, I know the truth. I know that what you say is false. And if that is false, if what your book, your faith, says about me is false... I have no reason to trust it in any other regard.

 

[Freodin]

I can admit to that. I can use you as an example.

So take that up with juvenissun... it is him who contradicts you on that.

 

[-57]

Read my last post. You claim that I deny the truth. You basically call me a liar... and because your faith depends on it, there is nothing I can tell you to convince you.

But I know the truth. I know that what you say is false.

I might not claim to know what you say about your God is false. I might not claim to know what you say about your "avenues of proof" is false. I don't believe it, that's all... and I can give reasons for that.

But in this case, I know the truth. I know that what you say is false. And if that is false, if what your book, your faith, says about me is false... I have no reason to trust it in any other regard.

If you say so.

 

[-57]

Oh, I did.

Not what you think now. If you ask nicely, perhaps I will tell you about my pet-philosophy about the ground of existence.

Pretty please with a cherry on top?
How's that?

 

[Freodin]

Pretty please with a cherry on top?
How's that?

I already hinted at it in post #235.

If we try to understand "nothing", by attempting to define or explain it, and then remove all the elements in the definition or explanation, finally remove even the means of defining or explaining, the rules by which we do so... we would arrive at what I would say is the real "nothing".

But it is no longer describable. You cannot make any true statements about it. You cannot make any false statements about it either.

As "nothing" is (as we have seen) much too loaded with certain connotations that do not apply to this state, I rather like to call it "primal chaos". (No one bothers with ancient greek mythology any more, so this term is kind of free... and I think it is a fitting name.)

Interestingly, this "primal chaos" shares a lot of, well, "properties" with some philosophical concepts of God. It is infinite... there are no boundaries or limits. It is timeless... there is no time. It is one... there are no distinctions.

And it is definitly beyond logic or reason... "nothing" means no rules or reasons as well.


(Ok, the linking went horrible wrong with that post. And the new forum system doesn't allow me to change it. Sorry for that. Link is valid though, even if the hypertext got too long.)

 

[-57]

How do you get something from that "nothing"?

 

[Freodin]

How do you get something from that "nothing"?

Limited order from chaos.

 

[-57]

Limited order from chaos.

Nothing would not contain no order or chaos. It would be nothing. So, how do you get the universe from nothing?

 

[Freodin]

Nothing would not contain no order or chaos. It would be nothing. So, how do you get the universe from nothing?

Misunderstanding of my concept of "nothing". That's why I personally don't use that term.

And I can understand why you have difficulties to 'understand' this concept. I would never claim that I do. It is not understandable. It is beyond reason or logic. No, it is without reason or logic.

You say "nothing would not contain no order or chaos". I say, you are right. And you are wrong. What tells you that you cannot be both? Logic! Reason!

But logic and reason does not exist in "nothing". The rules do not apply. No rule does. This "nothing" is also "everything".


Also, it does not "contain" chaos. It is chaos. Not describable.

I do not compel you to believe that, accept that, bow to that... it is irrelevant. It is irrational, illogical. It is derived from reason and logic, but arrived at a point where both fails.

And it is an idea that a human mind came up with.

 

[-57]

This "nothing" is also "everything".

That would be a contradiction.

 

[juvenissun]

Or perhaps you could just admit that people can believe illogical things.

I do not believe in illogical idea. I do not care what others do.

Again, I emphasize that human will not develop a religious system based on illogical principle. All other religions, except the Christianity, are built upon reasonable bases.

 

[Davian]

That's just not true. Faith in GOD doesn't refute sound scientific hypothesis.

So what science do you personally have to throw out for your god beleifs? Semiconductor theory? Germ theory? Evolutionary theory? Stellar nucleosynthesis? Modern theory of mind? Anything else? What do you keep, and why?

 

[Freodin]

That would be a contradiction.

Yes.

Without logic, where would be the problem?

 

[Freodin]

I do not believe in illogical idea. I do not care what others do.

Again, I emphasize that human will not develop a religious system based on illogical principle. All other religions, except the Christianity, are built upon reasonable bases.

You don't believe in illogical ideas. But you believe in Christianity, which is the only religion that is based on an illogical principle. (Which it is not really.)

You know, when I talk about primal chaos - that it is illogical and contradictory and all that - I am aware that it is a system 'above' our universe.
Within our universe, contradictions like the one you just presented are usually a sign that something is wrong.

 

[Freodin]

You don't believe in illogical ideas. But you believe in Christianity, which is the only religion that is based on an illogical principle. (Which it is not really.)

You know, when I talk about primal chaos - that it is illogical and contradictory and all that - I am aware that it is a system 'above' our universe.
Within our universe, contradictions like the one you just presented are usually a sign that something is wrong.

But you are still wrong. Christianity is not based on an illogical principle. Christianity managed to incorporate illogical principles. And that is not something unique.

 

[juvenissun]

You don't believe in illogical ideas. But you believe in Christianity, which is the only religion that is based on an illogical principle. (Which it is not really.)

You know, when I talk about primal chaos - that it is illogical and contradictory and all that - I am aware that it is a system 'above' our universe.
Within our universe, contradictions like the one you just presented are usually a sign that something is wrong.

The contradiction of what I said is obvious. Anyone can see it.
But it is not for me. The apparently illogical theology to you is actually very logical to me.
The Trinity is very very logical. That is why I believe in it. Human can not invent such an apparently illogical, but actually very logical theology.

Sorry to confused you.

 

[juvenissun]

But you are still wrong. Christianity is not based on an illogical principle. Christianity managed to incorporate illogical principles. And that is not something unique.

Challenge you to give another similar case.