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.
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.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.
I most certainly believe everything revealed by the Holy Spirit out of scriptures and will continue ministering that perfect word, thank you.You can believe whatever you like.
Clearly.
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.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.
I don't paint my face one way for God and another for his subjects.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
My answer is that existence exists, and only existence exists.
I don't paint my face one way for God and another for his subjects.
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.All you've done is use a lot of words to say, "It just is."
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 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.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 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.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?
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.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"?
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.
Yes, we are predisposed to finding patterns, even where there are none. Science helps us to differentiate genuine patterns from spurious ones.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?