Something I can never understand - can anyone help?

[Winepress777]

I am afraid your theology is a bit non standard.

God is indeed in every person; life is sustained by his Holy Spirit so wherever there is life there is the Spirit of God.

God's name is not Jesus; Jesus is called Jesus, God is called God. Both are part of the Godhead, but they are distinct persons within the Godhead, as is the Holy Spirit.

God is everywhere except where he withdraws his presence. He does this in places where evil exists, in order to show mercy to those who happen to be there. If God and evil were to share space then evil would be totally destroyed; even Moses was not able to look God in the face. People who become enmeshed in sin will find themselves further and further from God as he gives them the time and space to repent. Eventually, however, we will all stand face to face before him, and the more engrained we are in sin, the more unpleasant we will find it. God's fire is one of refinement; those who are most pure will stand like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace and not be harmed. Those who are least pure will find it rather less pleasant.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Daniel-Chapter-3/

If a person has not received the Holy Spirit of the Resurrected Jesus Christ in them through repentance baptism and Receiving Him as per Scriptures, then it hardly matters that their personal theology claims otherwise. So I believe you are mistaken in attempting to show my theology as non-standard.

 

[Catherineanne]

If a person has not received the Holy Spirit of the Resurrected Jesus Christ in them through repentance baptism and Receiving Him as per Scriptures, then it hardly matters that their personal theology claims otherwise. So I believe you are mistaken in attempting to show my theology as non-standard.

You can believe whatever you like.

Clearly.

Meanwhile, I will stick to Nicene et alia.

 

[Winepress777]

You can believe whatever you like.

Clearly.

I most certainly believe everything revealed by the Holy Spirit out of scriptures and will continue ministering that perfect word, thank you.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not really. Given that mankind is predisposed to finding pattern and meaning it makes sense for us also to seek for meaning in existence. In that sense we are predisposed to finding God.

Trouble is that humans use their pattern-recognizing brains to see patterns where they don't actually exist, like clouds being shaped like things, or pictures of faces on toast. People assign blame/thanks to things like meteorites because they have a need to find patterns even when they don't really exist. Again, it doesn't disprove God exists like some folk think he only exists in the imagination, but it certainly doesn't help the case that our brains are sort of hard-wired to make something up when it isn't there either.

 

[cjstabbo]

That is a shade non standard as well. God is many things; love, mercy, compassion, truth, beauty, purity, wisdom; lots of things. He offers us life eternal, but he himself is far more than this.

http://catholictradition.org/Litanies/litanies1c.htm

I don't paint my face one way for God and another for his subjects.

 

[Resha Caner]

My answer is that existence exists, and only existence exists.

All you've done is use a lot of words to say, "It just is."

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't paint my face one way for God and another for his subjects.

Do you know anyone who does? I don't.

 

[True Scotsman]

All you've done is use a lot of words to say, "It just is."

I used a lot of words and concepts to explain why the "it" in "it just is" is existence itself and not a form of consciousness which created everything distinct from itself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I really don't care whether other atheists vouch for it or not. Most atheists I've met are skeptics and claim that we can never be certain about anything, which on my view is a self refuting statement. If you understand how concepts are formed and their relation to reality and if you understand the axioms and the primacy of existence then it follows that "gods" have their origins in the imagination.

I see straight off that you and i will diverge on our respective assessments of the physical and metaphysical, being that our initial epistemological frameworks are different. I'm more of a Representative Realist than a Naive one, and I do think human perception limits the evaluations each of us makes of the world around us. You, on the other hand, seem more assured that the propositions you think and utter actually have the potential to fully reflect reality as it is. Or, am I mistaken?

 

[True Scotsman]

I am afraid that makes no sense at all.

If I looked inward for my faith I would no doubt create one of fairies and unicorns, with me as Queen of Everything. On the contrary I looked outward, and found a faith all around me; Christianity, specifically Anglicanism. This is not a figment of my imagination; it is in the world, it has churches and Cathedrals, a theology and it has a reality. At no point did I have to put logic aside and rely on whimsy; I use logic every day, and I use it within my faith.

It is a complete nonsense for non believers of any kind to claim to be logical and rational, and to disparage people of faith as emotional idiots without any rationality whatever. But by all means carry on believing it if it makes you feel more secure.

I never said that you were an emotional idiot. Where did you get that from? I said that some people look inward to the contents of their imaginations for answers and this is completely true.

 

[True Scotsman]

I see straight off that you and i will diverge on our respective assessments of the physical and metaphysical, being that our initial epistemological frameworks are different. I'm more of a Representative Realist than a Naive one, and I do think human perception limits the evaluations each of us makes of the world around us. You, on the other hand, seem more assured that the propositions you think and utter actually have the potential to fully reflect reality as it is. Or, am I mistaken?

I think so. I think you are using metaphysical to mean supernatural whereas I use it to mean the fundamental nature of the universe or existence if you like. I think it is very important for me to define what I mean by "universe" or "existence". As I inform the concept, it means everything that exists. I make no arbitrary divisions of existence. I take it to mean everything which actually exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. If something exists then it is included in the concept existence. The only thing not included would be the non-existent. I don't divide existence into a physical realm and a spiritual realm. Existence is a whole.

Yes I do think that a proposition can fully reflect reality. The statement that existence exists fully reflects the fact that things that exists are real. I don't speak of reality as it is because there is no such thing as reality as it isn't.

 

[Tellastory]

Christians, well in fact Muslims and Jews and for all I know many other religions "explain" the existence of the universe, the solar system, humanity etc by the fact it was created by a God (maybe the same god, maybe not?), and some justify this by saying that the chances of intelligent life are near impossible without a creator.

What I can't understand is where did this God come from? If the chances of intelligent life evolving over billions of years are very remote, then what are the chances of a being existing who is capable of making the heavens and everything in them just by willing it to happen. Where did he/ she/ it come from, who made God?

in my atheist, logical mind, the existence of this all powerful, all pervading being seems much more unlikely than natural forces evolving in tiny steps over billions of years, resulting in where we are now. What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

God exists outside the realm of the unverse He has created because He had created the universe that we see today. He is not confined by the natural laws of the universe when He was the One that created it all.

He did not use the natural laws to create everything, but created everything and then set the natural law afterwards as evident when making the lights in the heavens that third day and filled in the gap with that light the third day so that it would govern the earth that evening and night, the third day.

Now if you believe in the evolution theory wherein some would apply it to theorizing that we will become like a god, and somehow time travle will be mastered, one could go so far as to theorized that our future godlike selves went back in time to establish our very own origins, but it would not wash, because no matter how much evolution happens, they would be confined by the natural laws of the universe whereas the Creator of the Universe as in the God, is not confined and never was confined as witnessed of Jesus in His calming the winds of the storm and His coming back from the dead to life after three days.

Science has yet to deal with the supernatural even though they do have scientific research in the paranormal, but when it comes to spirits & demons, they recognize Whom Jesus is as God and the fact that Jesus casts them out, shows the God over spiritual realm also.

 

[Resha Caner]

I used a lot of words and concepts to explain why the "it" in "it just is" is existence itself and not a form of consciousness which created everything distinct from itself.

In my opinion, you didn't. Rather, you're playing semantic games where you depend on a self-reference "existence exists", and excuse that self-reference by saying it's not a "pure" self-reference (whatever that means) ... as if creating categories of self-reference makes one acceptable but not the other.

If you really think there is anything to this, you'll have to spend a bit more time laying it out for me. For example, is existence a thing? If not, can you show me existence apart from a thing? I ask because, per my usage of the word "existence exists" is semantic nonsense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am not sure what difference your point makes as it does not negate anything I have said.

Time does not exist before the Big Bang because time can only be measured from that point.

Therefore, all time begins from that point, and nothing can be said about 'before'. Time itself did not exist before the Big Bang. Something else may have existed but we have no way of knowing and therefore anything that is said can only be guesswork.



No, it would not put an end to anything, given that creation stories are already very well accepted as being not history but mythology. This forum may seem to indicate otherwise, but that is because it is not particularly typical of mainstream Christian teaching but rather slanted towards a more predominant evangelical outlook. Most Christians today have no problem with science, no problem with evolution and no problem with the creation stories as a variant of mythology; still containing truth but not intended as historical truth as we know it today.

Well, it's refreshing to see a christian who accepts the bible as a mythology book and not a history book. You're absolutely right that the opposite is what I've mainly heard from christians on this forum...and that's probably why I jumped to the conclusion that you felt the same way. I was wrong and I apologize for making that assumption.

Regarding time though, you've contradicted yourself. You said this...

"Therefore, all time begins from that point, and nothing can be said about 'before'."

If nothing can be said about "before" the big bang...then how can we say all time begins from that point? Time "as we know it" begins with the big bang...what happened before is anyone's guess. It's entirely possible that time existed in some manner before the big bang...just as it's possible that time didn't exist at all before the big bang. We simply don't know, as you said it's only guesswork before the big bang.

So to say that all time began at the big bang is inaccurate. All we can speak intelligently about is time as we know it, as it works within our universe. So the correct way to frame that statement is that "Time as we know it began with the big bang."

 

[Resha Caner]

Most Christians today have no problem with science, no problem with evolution and no problem with the creation stories as a variant of mythology; still containing truth but not intended as historical truth as we know it today.

I'm not sure why this matters. If most Christians rejected evolution, you would just say they are wrong wouldn't you? Or do you believe majority belief makes that belief true? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

With that said, I don't think the picture is quite as clear as you paint it. People have a mish-mash of beliefs that are hard to separate into a dichotomous accept/don't accept. For example, I recall one study showing that among adult Americans who say they accept evolution, a majority can't properly explain what evolution is. Honestly, I would expect the same of many people professing particular religious affiliations. As I've said before, it doesn't seem the number of people falling into one category or another has much to do with true or false.

 

[pastor marty]

Christians, well in fact Muslims and Jews and for all I know many other religions "explain" the existence of the universe, the solar system, humanity etc by the fact it was created by a God (maybe the same god, maybe not?), and some justify this by saying that the chances of intelligent life are near impossible without a creator.

What I can't understand is where did this God come from? If the chances of intelligent life evolving over billions of years are very remote, then what are the chances of a being existing who is capable of making the heavens and everything in them just by willing it to happen. Where did he/ she/ it come from, who made God?

in my atheist, logical mind, the existence of this all powerful, all pervading being seems much more unlikely than natural forces evolving in tiny steps over billions of years, resulting in where we are now. What do Christians think about the origins of God, and if the answer is that God "just exists", why can't the universe "just exist"?

Mr. Dave; OK:my new (and hopefully),future friend,here's the explanation; logic & facts & science 2 dispel your honest doubts about an eternal,immortal, Sentient Creator (one who can manipulate all that IS-WAS-Mightbe) A person walking on a metal 'Mobius strip' w/magnetic boots on never reaches an end.Consider time as one of these;All time exists simutaneously,(my friend{Doctorate in Quantum Physics};is helping me w/the heavy Sci.) Walt leaves the connections,& logic/deductions (putting the ideas together) 2 me. OOPS!! ( computer time-up 4 today. ) W/finish lecture later >>Gotta do this anyway (lecturing buffalo herd size bunch of wanna-be philosophers on same topic,soon . might as well practice on U. Stay tuned/same time/same station W.G.O.D. pastor marty DDS.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think so. I think you are using metaphysical to mean supernatural whereas I use it to mean the fundamental nature of the universe or existence if you like. I think it is very important for me to define what I mean by "universe" or "existence". As I inform the concept, it means everything that exists. I make no arbitrary divisions of existence. I take it to mean everything which actually exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. If something exists then it is included in the concept existence. The only thing not included would be the non-existent. I don't divide existence into a physical realm and a spiritual realm. Existence is a whole.

Yes I do think that a proposition can fully reflect reality. The statement that existence exists fully reflects the fact that things that exists are real. I don't speak of reality as it is because there is no such thing as reality as it isn't.

No, I use the term metaphysics in a way similar to you. The main difference would be that while I think the term refers to "the fundamental nature of the universe"--for whatever its worth may be as a psychological model sitting within the human mind--I don't conflate the term "universe" with that of "existence," and I lean more toward a Kantian understanding of how we can expect to interact with these two concepts (without becoming a Transcendental Idealist). But, since these terms are so tenuous by being contextualized differently within our individual minds, I'm not going to contend with your particular usage of these terms. I would simply say that they are 'representative' of Reality, rather than fully reflective of it. So, I too am a Realist, but again, not a Naive (or Direct) one.

 

[True Scotsman]

No, I use the term metaphysics in a way similar to you. The main difference would be that while I think the term refers to "the fundamental nature of the universe"--for whatever its worth may be as a psychological model sitting within the human mind--I don't conflate the term "universe" with that of "existence," and I lean more toward a Kantian understanding of how we can expect to interact with these two concepts (without becoming a Transcendental Idealist). But, since these terms are so tenuous by being contextualized differently within our individual minds, I'm not going to contend with your particular usage of these terms. I would simply say that they are 'representative' of Reality, rather than fully reflective of it. So, I too am a Realist, but again, not a Naive (or Direct) one.

Yes if you are a Kantian then we are not going to agree on much at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not really. Given that mankind is predisposed to finding pattern and meaning it makes sense for us also to seek for meaning in existence. In that sense we are predisposed to finding God.

Yes, we are predisposed to finding patterns, even where there are none. Science helps us to differentiate genuine patterns from spurious ones.

 

[True Scotsman]

That's not what is going on

In my opinion, you didn't. Rather, you're playing semantic games where you depend on a self-reference "existence exists", and excuse that self-reference by saying it's not a "pure" self-reference (whatever that means) ... as if creating categories of self-reference makes one acceptable but not the other.

If you really think there is anything to this, you'll have to spend a bit more time laying it out for me. For example, is existence a thing? If not, can you show me existence apart from a thing? I ask because, per my usage of the word "existence exists" is semantic nonsense.

That's not what is going on here at all. The concept "existence" does not commit the fallacy of pure self reference as its reference is literally everything that exists. The statement that existence exists similarly references everything that exists so it is the farthest from a pure self-referential statement that you can get. No semantic games, no special special pleading.

Here is an example of a purely self referential statement:

This statement is true.

It references nothing but its own object-less referencing. It says nothing. As you know, all fallacies share one thing in common. They involve a contradiction. A statement that says nothing is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction in recognizing that existence exists and has primacy over consciousness. This is just the recognition of what is self evident. I can't show you existence apart from a thing because to exist is to be something and to be something is to exist. It's unclear to me why this would need to be demonstrated?