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.
How is it that a viewpoint that has absolutely no supporting evidence is rational?
I was responding to a request for a non-contradictory definition of God.I see no evidence to support this premise.
That is the nub. If the idea of god that is presented is contradictory, then that idea can be rejected.
The universe is self-aware. That is self-evident, because I, "Tiberius", am in it. I am not a separate thing, so the universe is self aware, and I am aware of the rest of the universe, just as I am aware of my hair and fingernails.Tiberius said:And even if the universe did have some collective consciousness or the universe was self aware, I still see no reason why that consciousness/awareness should be called God.
The premise is not contradictory, which makes it preferable to premises that are contradictory in themselves. It may not fit your "idea" of God, but you need only show that your "idea" is consistent with observed reality, to achieve parity. The univers does not have to be omniscient, any more than a baby has to understand physiology or psychology in order to be a human being. But because I am in it, the universe has the capacity to learn.Gracchus said:Let "God" be the collective consciousness/self-awareness of the universe.
If all the universe is a figment of my imagination (solipsism) then I am God. Not Gracchus, but ME, the person reading this. Interestingly enough, when Moses asks the burning bush, "Who shall I say has sent me?", the incinerating shrubbery replies, "Tell them I AM has sent you!"
So until there is another claimant, I AM!
As the Hindus say, "Tat tvam asi." ("That thou art!")
(See for instance, "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are", by Alan Watts.)
How is it that a viewpoint that has absolutely no supporting evidence is rational?
First of all, quoting the Bible will have little influence on me. I don't see the Bible as a reliable source. Quoting the Bible in an effort to prove any theological conclusion will have as much effect on me as if I quoted Harry Potter to prove wizards are real to you.
Secondly, you can stop with the thinly veiled name calling. Calling me blind and deaf just because I happen to disagree with you is not warranted. let's discuss this like adults, not children, okay?
My friend, quoting the Bible is part of my job. You may think it does not have any affect on you but as scripture says in Hebrews 4:12:
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
I quote scripture too, but only to make a point about its accuracy or inconsistency. Certainly, the Bible can be useful, but it is not inerrant, it is not complete, is is not perfect. It is what one of the blind men wrote about the elephant.sacerdote said:Believing this, how can I not quote scripture. As far as namecalling, if you believe the Bible is calling you names you have a right to believe that. Personally, I think it is trying to get your attention. Certainly I have not called you any names. Let me finish with some more scripture from 2 Timothy 3:16:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Let me finish with some more scripture from 2 Timothy 3:16:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
The belief in atheism is that religion spawned from ignorant early men transitioning from beasts (or beastmen).
The word of God is not found in a book. The word of God is reality. "The word was God." God is what is real and the only complete inerrant description of reality is reality itself. The book may describe reality, and the book may be real, but it is only a description, less than what it describes and possibly even mistaken.
I quote scripture too, but only to make a point about its accuracy or inconsistency. Certainly, the Bible can be useful, but it is not inerrant, it is not complete, is is not perfect. It is what one of the blind men wrote about the elephant.
Get out a little more then. Mingle during peak season.Say what?
Atheism contains no such belief, and I've never heard of a single atheist saying this.
I recommend that you ask us what we believe, instead of trying to put words in our mouths.
eudaimonia,
Mark
My discription of a circle is not a circle. A narrative about Jesus, is not Jesus.What you are explaining is plainly stated in the book of John. However, taking into account that scripture is inspired by God then don't you think there is a little bit of Jesus in it?
Or Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva! Or maiden, nymph, and mother! Or Larry, Moe, and Curly! Appearance is multiple, reality is one.We are after all dealing with a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Yes indeed, and one thing we can learn from any scripture is critical thinking, how to sift the truth from the falsehood.Many believe that scripture is as you believe or should I say, flawed? I do not believe that scripture is flawed. I think there is much that we do not understand. Let me close with this.
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)
My discription of a circle is not a circle. A narrative about Jesus, is not Jesus.
Or Bramah, Vishnu, and Shiva! Or maiden, nymph, and mother! Appearance is multiple, reality is one.
Yes indeed, and one thing we can learn from any scripture is critical thinking, how to sift the truth from the falsehood.
Get out a little more then. Mingle during peak season.
Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?I believe my belief is rational, just as you believe you belief is rational.
Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?
- Atheism lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence.
- Theism unshakeable belief in something without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.
Could the religious believers here please tell us which position is more rational, reasonable and sensible?
- Atheism lack of belief in something for which there is no sound evidence.
- Theism unshakeable belief in something without any sound evidence or sound reasoning whatsoever.
Are they incorrect or do you just disagree with them for no sound reason? If you think my definitions are incorrect then show us exactly how and where they are incorrect.I don't agree with these definitions.
Tell us what sound evidence and sound reasoning you used to reach your conclusion that your God is real.I have plenty of proofs in my life that the Triune God exists and is the "real" truth.
That's not what atheists claim. Most atheists anyway. Atheists have but one thing in common - lack of belief in gods.Christianity. If you know there no God then you must have all knowledge which would make you God.
Based on your posting, I am NOTHING like you at all. I understand what evidence is, for example.If you doubt there is a God then you are like most of the rest of us were before we became Christian.
Your personal opinion, unsupported by evidence, is duly noted.I have plenty of proofs in my life that the Triune God exists and is the "real" truth. I pray that you find Him. He is your Father and is right in front of you.
Are they incorrect or do you just disagree with them for no sound reason? If you think my definitions are incorrect then show us exactly how and where they are incorrect.
If you can’t show us that my definitions are incorrect then please answer the question. Which position is the more rational, reasonable and sensible?
No, to lack belief implies that I do not believe that thing. Whatever it is. I lack belief in faeries at the bottom of the garden.I already told you. To "lack a belief" implies ignorance to such a belief.
Not at all. You really don't know how atheists think, do you?Once you have knowledge of its existence, you internalize beliefs about it based on your foundational philosophical worldview.
No, I have formed an opinion based on evidence (or in this case, lack thereof). But whether or not I accepted Christian doctrine, I lack any belief in god. Period.You are not ignorant to the Christian belief. You have formed a belief about whether or not it is correct.
No choice involved. I don't think you can really choose your beliefs.You choose to believe it is false. This is not a lack of anything.
Nope. I've heard about the carpenter-turned-rabbi-turned-political dissident all my life.Now, if you were on an island all your life and never heard about Jesus, only then would you "lack a belief" in Him.
Bertrand Russel, teapots, yadda yadda. All been addressed by smarter people decades ago.
My position is different than yours. It does not require me to claim virtual omniscience.
Example:
Let say you claim that there are no dogs in existence. It would be impossible for you to search the entire earth (not to mention the universe) to know this.
Let's say I claim that dogs do exist. All I have to do is find one dog to prove my claim. I might not even have to leave my neighborhood.
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?