Standards are good for clearing Science.

[Dmitri Martila]

(NEWS: the points of talks below are nicely in the file). The quote from attached file as the advertisement of my contribution:
...The often and awfully neglected Standard is the Holy Trinity. How simple and clear life is with Him! According to Orthodox Christianity God is not changing. So He is our Standard. We also must try to be His instruments in this de-standartising world. So we, based on Standard, are not likely to be defeated by evil...

Many worlds in the Multiverse?!
Because there are no other Physical constants (i.e. no wrong values of them, no alien Physics), then the casual and God-less Multiverse is impossible. There are no places with varying value of the fundamental pi-number!

 

[Gene2memE]

...The often and awfully neglected Standard is the Holy Trinity.

What evidence can you give to support this standard? Why should I, or anyone, accept it?

According to Orthodox Christianity God is not changing.

Why should I accept this point of doctrine?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

What evidence can you give to support this standard? Why should I, or anyone, accept it? Why should I accept this point of doctrine?

1) It is your free choice. No reason to reject God. 2) It is logic. It is your free choice to be logical or else.

 

[ecco]

My free choice is to be logical. I guess that's why I'm headed for the "or else".

 

[Dmitri Martila]

My free choice is to be logical. I guess that's why I'm headed for the "or else".

Where is my logical flaw? Please recall the above conversation:
Me: "According to Orthodox Christianity God is not changing."
Pagan: "Why should I accept this point of doctrine?"
Me: it is logic. I repeat: ACCORDING TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. It is simply the fact.

 

[Gene2memE]

1) It is your free choice. No reason to reject God.

I see nothing in the Christian God - Eastern Orthodox interpretations of or otherwise - that makes the concept more or less plausible than that of any of the other god or gods proposed through human history.

That is to say, I have see nothing that convinces me that I should have belief in any of those gods present to me.

Hence, my atheism. My position is one of not having being convinced by the evidence and argument presented to me, so I suspend any apportionment of belief.

2) It is logic. It is your free choice to be logical or else.

You don't just get to assert that it is logical, fait accompli. You need to show that it is indeed, logical.

Give me the underlying reasons that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of a non-changing God is one that can be logically suppported.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Give me the underlying reasons that the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of a non-changing God is one that can be logically suppported.

Thank you for conversation, hope you would learn a bit from my perspective. I have refered to logic because the sentence "According to Orthodox Christianity God is not changing." does not violate any laws of logic. Because it is plain information to broad up readers horizons. Are you with me?

 

[Gene2memE]

No.

A "not changing" God could mean almost anything. It would also appear to explicitly exclude a conscious entity, or one that intervenes in the affairs of the universe, directly or indirectly.

If there is no intervention by God, how are we expected to determine whether it exists or not. A god that exists but does nothing (is "not changing") is in a practical sense no different from a god that does not exist.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

No. A "not changing" God could mean almost anything.

We are talking on different levels. You are going ultimately deep. Any of your reply is the complete thesis. And you have so many "likes"! P.S. Just admit, that being discussed sentence in the file is logical (and You can remain pagan, if you really want). Shall I tell you formulations of Aristoteles logic-laws?

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm familiar with Aristotle's axiomatic laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle). They're a fine underpinning for a discussion, but not for the start of one.

If you want a clear discussion, then you need to define terms and put forward an argument.

A good place to start would be to clearly and concisely state what it is you believe, and why you believe it.

 

[Armoured]

This reads like Timecube

 

[Dmitri Martila]

A good place to start would be to clearly and concisely state what it is you believe, and why you believe it.

Take the look: according to atheism the God is absent; according to Obama, the Putin is bad; according to Putin, the Obama is not adequate; according to you, I am crazy; according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the God is not changing. I see no logical problems with all these plain facts, are you with me at last?

 

[Gene2memE]

Take the look: according to atheism the God is absent;

That's not what I stated. Nor is it what I, or the vast majority of atheists that I have interacted with, claim.

My position is that theist have not met their burden of proof to my satisfaction, so I see no reason to believe their claims.

If you can meet that burden, I'm open to having my mind and my belief stance changed.

according to Obama, the Putin is bad; according to Putin, the Obama is not adequate;

That's as may be, but its also completely irrelevant.

according to you, I am crazy;

I made no such statement about your mental state. If you want to continue the discussion, I'll ask you not to attribute to me positions I have never taken. Otherwise, we can just end it right now.

according to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the God is not changing.

That's what you stated earlier. I understand the doctrinal claim. What I wanted to know was your reasoning as to why the concept of an unchanging God was logical.

In response to my earlier question as to why I should accept the Christian Orthodox doctrinal point that God is unchanging, you answered "It is logical". I want to know why you think this is logical.


********************
To move the conversation out to a range that is a little broader; my feeling is that you're heading down the presuppositional apologetics position that God provides the foundation for the logical underpinnings of the universe.

This line of reasoning simply leads both sides to a boxed in positions : Non-believers assert that the laws of logic, or math, or 'absolute truth' or the existence of the physical constants of the universe are invariable and (mostly) unchanging because they describe fundamental relationships that exist in the physical universe. Christians - and other theists too - assert that these instead reflect the nature of God, or something similar, and thus the existence of a logically intelligible and stable universe that we inhabit proves the existence of God.

What happens then is that both sides talk past each other, because one side is attempting to define something into existence and the other is attempting to account for the nature of reality.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I am sorry for being somewhat slow. I refered to logic, to defend the formulation of my sentence. I have not derived this to the level of Verity, which You want to adopt (seemingly). My poor contribution to the asked proofs are in: http://viXra.org/abs/1507.0114 and the http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0152 and several other places. You are free to adopt my own ideas or reject them (it is not peer-reviewed).

 

[Paulos23]

Lots of claims, no supporting evidence. So it can be ignored.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Lots of claims, no supporting evidence. So it can be ignored.

It is your free choice (Why then you ask for proofs?). One even can ignore own breathing and, thus, die. One can ignore what's ever in this world. But it is not always recommended.

 

[ecco]

1) It is your free choice. No reason to reject God. 2) It is logic. It is your free choice to be logical or else.

My free choice is to be logical. I guess that's why I'm headed for the "or else".

Where is my logical flaw? Please recall the above conversation:
Me: "According to Orthodox Christianity God is not changing."
Pagan: "Why should I accept this point of doctrine?"
Me: it is logic. I repeat: ACCORDING TO ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. It is simply the fact.

I didn't say, nor intend to imply, you had a logical flaw.

I stated that I made a logical choice to reject god. I assumed your "or else" was eternal punishment. I'm OK with that.

I, an atheist, not a pagan, also accept your premise that "According to Orthodox Christianity God is not changing." I can accept logical facts. I would* say that all religions and religious people believe their god is unchanging - Muslims, Hindus, et al.

So, I do not see the point you are attempting to make.





* In another thread someone did state that god's omniscience did change from time to time.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Not peer-reviewed?

'nuff said.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

In another thread someone did state that god's omniscience did change from time to time.

He remains Holy. So He is not changing. A man today can lie, tomorrow can be true. So the man can change and is changing like the Moon. God is always the same. He is our Standard. It is your free choice believe it or else. You need no proofs to make the FREE choice, because the choice is FREE. Any atheist has the false god, which name is "absence of God". So any atheist is not a special, proud demolisher, but a very primitive pagan. God says to You: "Repent! You have sinned, have not fulfilled all your purpose: see the first commandment. But it is your free choice."

 

[ecco]

Any atheist has the false god, which name is "absence of God". So any atheist is not a special, proud demolisher, but a very primitive pagan.

Why do you not understand the term "atheism"? Do you believe so strongly in your god that you just cannot fathom that some people believe in no god?

(emphasis mine)

pa·gan
ˈpāɡən/
noun
1.
a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.
synonyms: heathen, infidel, idolater, idolatress;
archaicpaynim
"pagans worshiped the sun"


a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."he is a committed atheist"synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,agnostic; nihilist
​

Do you see the difference? Now try to understand and remember the difference.