I've seen one on TV - a third world baby, born to a child of around 12 years old, out in the bush, with no facilities at all. Will that do?
Upvote
0
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.
I've seen one on TV - a third world baby, born to a child of around 12 years old, out in the bush, with no facilities at all. Will that do?Have you ever been a baby, outside in a world where there is no hospital, and without an adult parent to take care of you...
No, I don´t - as has been explained in my initial post.quatona,
To clarify, you're dismissing out of hand the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation.
Then I suggest you discuss this with this "someone else" fellow.Someone else here on CF said that he wouldn't even consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation but would entertain the idea that all life on Earth originated with Alien beings who brought it here in space ships, which I think amounts to an unwillingness to approach the issue with an open mind.
Neither of those terms is well-defined; you can read pretty much anything into them. Seems to me it's like saying the Snark was a Boojum... (apologies to Lewis Carroll).... But God is a Spirit.
Sometimes people come to a discussion board and offer their ideas but become belligerent if someone tries to discuss any of it with them.No, I don´t - as has been explained in my initial post.
Then I suggest you discuss this with this "someone else" fellow.
You might find this link interesting: Countering the Kalam 1-5.Yes. To name one, I think the kalam cosmological argument is pretty good.
I never talked about me having a problem of believing. I talked about a problem that´s induced by inaccurate use of the term "explanation".
Huh?
No. I was merely pointing out the differences between a claim and an explanation, and was suggesting not to confuse the two. Plus I was pointing out that I have never seen a "supernatural explanation" - thus I am not "dismissing supernatural explanations out of hand" (as the poster I responded to claimed), but instead am patiently waiting until such a "supernatural explanation" is being presented to me for the first time.
I think my post was pretty clear. If you want to address my point, feel free.
If, however, you want to ramble or address your own strawmen, please find yourself someone else.
you know it won't do. That is not the original and initial way that any living species ever came into existence and you also note that there was a parent (a 12 year old...God forgive the world for their selfishness and disgrace)involved who brought forth that childI've seen one on TV - a third world baby, born to a child of around 12 years old, out in the bush, with no facilities at all. Will that do?
Yes because He made Himself and The Truth of Yhe Gospel known to me
That is my evidence
The question made no mention of the origin of species, and specifically referred to an 'adult' parent - would you consider a pre-teen to be adult?you know it won't do. That is not the original and initial way that any living species ever came into existence and you also note that there was a parent (a 12 year old...God forgive the world for their selfishness and disgrace)involved who brought forth that child
I don't agree with that; but regardless, my answer was specific to the question asked.But the initial "man" did not come into the world born in the normal and natural way as a newborn defenseless baby
Well, I guess God could make an appearance, and just say it was him.
What I meant was, a miracle seems to be something that just amazes a person that currently isn't explained with certain views of natural laws. If we understand exactly how something is working, it ceases to be a miracle. We could understand that something is a lie, or that God was involved. Miracle seems to be a label.
I'm sure it does raise questions, but one does not need to have answers to every question that is raised in order to believe in that which is questioned. That's a matter of fact, people will believe regardless of whether or not all of the questions are answered.
In what way is a belief useless, specifically belief in Christian doctrine?
It really depends of what use is specified. I don't think belief in Christian doctrine is useless. At the very least, Christian doctrine has led me to live a more peaceful happier life, with hope for a better future. I find my beliefs to be practically useful, not essentially useless.
Is that really useless, or did you mean useless in a academic sense in which we have to prove to colleagues in our respective fields the truth of something?
If I believe something exists, and you can't verify it, it's only up to me to show that it actually exists if that is my personal goal. I could very well choose not to inform you of my beliefs.
As for assuming somethings non-existence, no one has verified that God doesn't exist, so should be assume that it's not the case that God doesn't exist?
Rather, you shouldn't really assume anything claiming that it's a proven fact. I don't claim that it's a proven fact that God exists, but I do claim that God exists, just not that I've proven anything.
So, should we then, assume that there is no bear?
Should we accept it as a fact that there is indeed no bear?
Or, should we say, it's possible that there is a bear?
There's nothing logically invalid about there being a bear. Now, if I said I saw a bear that was as large as a common elephant, but as small as a common mouse, you ought to deny that, since it's a logical contradiction.
If someone told me they saw a bear, I would be asking where, and grant that the person actually saw a bear. I'd try to get the heck out of there. I would err on the side of caution being open to the possibility of there being a bear.
If you wanted to check out a cave in the forest, but then I said, I think I saw a bear in there, but it's dark so I don't know...
Would you assume there is no bear?
I could go on and on about the dangers of assuming that there isn't a danger, when indeed there is one, with no proof happening to be available at the time.
As for believing in things, when it comes to the bear, there is typically a reason for believing that a bear is present, small hints maybe, a crackle of a twig, blood in the water, but nothing very conclusive.
Perhaps the same is with God. I've learned about God, I look at the world around me, and I reflect on morality, the existence of the universe, as well as other things, and something about all of that speaks to me and reminds me of God, and I choose to affirm his existence.
Sir. There are many listening in (who are not responding in the back and forth diavussions) who very well may have ears to hear and believe what can only be heard and believed by His Spirit doing for us what we can not do for ourselvesIf you can't demonstrate that truth to anyone else using good evidence, then what's your motives in posting here? You're not going to convince any of the non-theists if you don't have good evidence you can share. Your claims become the exact same as any other theistic claim.
Unsubstantiated.
It is not an assumption but a conclusion based upon the available evidence of physics and cosmology....The term probably means everything that began to exist...The alternative is an actual infinite series of past events which is and absurdity of monumental proportions.
A necessary thing that exists will only change if it makes a choice to change. Your inability to comprehend the ability of a person to choose something of its own volition simply because it wants to, simply as an act of will, is perhaps the problem here.
So the universe creates itself? This is absurd in spite of the current popular belief among those who should know better. Actually what I have encountered with pantheism is that they usually appreciate a being at the centre of it all from which all other gods and realities emate.
A consistent something rather than an absurd nothing is always a better explanation, and yes I do prefer this explanation.
The question is not so much as how this might work. It will obviously be something that we find difficult to comprehend. But it is not unreasonable. More to the point though is how the mind works and develops through the brain. Something that we also know very little about and find difficult to comprehend.
So I when I know exactly how the human mind works perhaps I might be able to make an inference as to the working of another type of mind. What is certain is that the current insistence of materialism in the neurosciences is doing absolutely no favours to our understanding.
How would you know? Clearly in the case of a human brain development generally runs hand in hand with the development of the person but this is not always the case. There are several cases of severely handicapped or damaged people who relate a clear awareness and thought life (once they have recovered or developed) in spite of the physical (brain) problems they encounter.
What you raise is an issue that has been considered since the very earliest days of Christian thought, and it was the way in which the Christian concept of trinity was explained to me.
It is necessary for God to have at least an eternally dual nature because therein lies Gods recognition of “I AM”.
In this way as well we see that there is indeed some form of causality, to and fro relationship between God and God, with the third person being the relationship itself.
To be frank I haven’t thought of a way in which this might work in a timeless context however.
The reality for this mind would be the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
I don’t think I am assuming anything. In the topic of the supernatural we are largely dealing with the unknown so the question is whether it might be reasonable for something to exist, not whether it exist within the context of our experience.
I can see no reason why it would be logically inconsistent for a person to exixt within the context of its own being.
Only if you assume that the mind always follows a process of computation.
I would probably have great difficulty in providing a “justifiable” answer but at least with this sort of “magical”, the magician is present. The opposing view is devoid of anything whic is a whole lot worse....Because I like to look at a problems from a different angle.
Yes I am. What I find interesting is that I don’t think that the Human mind is created to operate without the brain and I am sceptical of stories to the contrary.
Nevertheless the brain might be instrument that can be played like a keyboard.
So the idea of a disembodied mind is, I admit problematic but not logically inconsistent, and with the view of the fact that something had to cause a complete and perfect reality to change in order to bring about the beginning of the Universe it is the only thing that makes sense.
The alternative would be something like Stephen Hawkins assertion that because physical laws exist, the universe exists. But nobody has ever observed a physical law causing anything at all and neither have all of the other abstract descriptors that are often attributed.
LOL what can any of us “know” in this respect. I don’t claim to know that it works or how it might work. My objective here is to present a reasonable argument and the only certainty I have after 28 years it is that the argument for the Personal Uncaused Cause continues to be a whole lot more plausible than the alternative.
There is a superficially plausible evolutionary hypothesis that suggests that we have such a strong tendency to attribute agency to pretty much anything because those who took fright at the first signs of a potential predator (i.e. those who attributed <malicious> agency by default) were more likely to survive than those who waited until it was obvious......I will live my life assuming there isn't danger unless there is a good reason to assume danger is present. If you assume danger is present, you won't experience much because you can always invent possible dangers.
How would you know? Clearly in the case of a human brain development generally runs hand in hand with the development of the person but this is not always the case. There are several cases of severely handicapped or damaged people who relate a clear awareness and thought life (once they have recovered or developed) in spite of the physical (brain) problems they encounter.
Does that really follow? why can't a consistent worldview be maddening and frustrating?
Sir. There are many listening in (who are not responding in the back and forth diavussions) who very well may have ears to hear and believe what can only be heard and believed by His Spirit doing for us what we can not do for ourselves
I would argue that the general Christian worldview does correspond to truth. I would point to the continued existence of Christian faith itself, sometimes under the worst possible conditions, as proof of that. If it were not corresponding to peoples actual experience of reality, it would be discarded for something else. Christianity survived communism, after all, one of the most systematic attempts the world has even seen to eliminate it.
Atheism as the default position is a relatively recent phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, people took the existence of some kind of unseen force or forces that guide the world as a given.
Ditto for miracles. Until the rise of skepticism due to the infighting among various Christian confessions and consequent repristination of Greek skepticism, miracles were not something dismissed as impossible. Indeed, medieval and ancient life was full of those sorts of stories. That's not to say that they were not rare events, but people were generally less skeptical. So it's important to understand why skepticism exists at all today as an influential worldview- due to historical forces, not necessarily correspondence to truth.
I don't think people are born wired for atheism. Even the scientific evidence doesn't point to that- children start developing quasi-animistic or theistic beliefs early on without much influence from their parents. And this fits with what Paul said at Mars Hill in Athens- people are born God-seekers, not atheist. That doesn't mean they find him. More often than not, they turn to idolatries of various sorts.
And regarding Constantine... what makes you think there was no providential role for the Christian God in that matter? Again, your argument seems too much like the anti-Hellenist arguments of Von Harnack in the 19th century.
I live in the US, not France. Religious belief here is not seen as something shameful, it's a fairly normal part of the social landscape and there are a variety of viewpoints and pluralism.
Does everyone read everyone else's posts? Frumious my post was in response to Todds post I'll go back to find it so you can understand I was being a bit facetious with regards to the normal pattern of a human being brought into the world in the human natural way and the impossibility of that having been the case for the very first being to have survived in that normal patten and state without at least one adult prior to it being born into the world
No newborn baby can come into the world of its own
The first being had to be fully grown and fully equipped FIRST
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?