What, If Anything, Might Change Your Mind?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'll start... I'm a growing skeptic to Christianity.

This is most common all over the earth. No reason needed to leave Christianity or to reject it. Simply being deceived with the whole world, very popular position, and deadly (leads to destruction of your life and soul).

It doesn't matter who you listened to or didn't like. No excuses accepted on judgment day.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

When I lookup up 'nothing', it states 'not anything, not a single thing.' This would imply anything, everything, everywhere. According to such a conceptual definition, I'm sure God is not nothing, is He?

How might one determine which definition is correct? (yours, mine, other)



But this somehow excludes a claimed omnitemporal God?

I think you may be somewhat confused. We are using the same definition. It is those claiming that God doesn't exist that suggest that the universe was caused by nothing. It is the theist who claims that there was never nothing because God always existed and the universe was caused by God. God is the eternal uncaused cause.

 

[cvanwey]

This is most common all over the earth. No reason needed to leave Christianity or to reject it. Simply being deceived with the whole world, very popular position, and deadly (leads to destruction of your life and soul).

It doesn't matter who you listened to or didn't like. No excuses accepted on judgment day.

I'm sorry, I'm all for productive banter and semi-witty exchanges. However, your tireless assertions of your specific God, and me going to hell for not believing the way you do, is really starting to get old. If you have nothing of value to contribute, please troll someone else's posts.

Thnx

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

for not believing

"unbelief"
The sin that the whole world is guilty of. And dies for, in eternal judgment.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

On judgment day, many who thought they were "believers" and thought they were "saved" before they died,
find out the "god" they believed in was not the One True God - as Jesus tells them on Judgment Day "Be gone from Me , I never knew you" ...
ie. multitudes of "Christians" find out the bad news on Judgment Day.

So don't follow the wrong "god". There is only One True God. Don't give up on the One True God by mistaking Him with the wrong "god".

 

[cvanwey]

I think you may be somewhat confused. We are using the same definition. It is those claiming that God doesn't exist that suggest that the universe was caused by nothing. It is the theist who claims that there was never nothing because God always existed and the universe was caused by God. God is the eternal uncaused cause.

Until we establish a 'nothing', it's all confusion.

I'll ask some semi-relevant questions again, from a much prior post:

What's colder than absolute zero?
What's slower than stop?

When you know the definitions of 'absolute zero, and 'stop', the questions become silly. Couple this with the plausibility of infinite regress, and/or 'always was', then the presented questions also become unnecessary.

Because we are able to invent the question, does not automatically make it logical, or even 'answerable'. I have committed this error myself (many times)... Without establishing definitions, it's a free-for-all...

 

[cvanwey]

The biggest thing, for me, is fulfilled prophecy. God, telling us what is going to happen, long before it happens. Here are some examples~~~> The Bible: Proofs of Its Supernatural Origin .

Before I delve into these asserted claims, are you even open for debate on this stated evidence??? If you are certain they are true, and nothing can persuade you otherwise, regardless of what may discovered, then I'm not really going to bother at this juncture (but may down the road). This will take some digging to validate or reject, from my own 'objective' findings.

 

[chilehed]

I know this methodology appears juvenile.

It is juvenile. For all you know it's vitally important for you to not have that toe; you're fixated on some thing that you want to have and playing a 12 year old's line of "dad won't give me what I want, what a dick".

Quit whining.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Until we establish a 'nothing', it's all confusion.

I'll ask some semi-relevant questions again, from a much prior post:

What's colder than absolute zero?
What's slower than stop?

When you know the definitions of 'absolute zero, and 'stop', the questions become silly. Couple this with the plausibility of infinite regress, and/or 'always was', then the presented questions also become unnecessary.

Because we are able to invent the question, does not automatically make it logical, or even 'answerable'. I have committed this error myself (many times)... Without establishing definitions, it's a free-for-all...

Perhaps you are correct. Which is why it is more logical and reasonable to assume that something created the universe as opposed to nothing creating the universe. Which to me seems more absurd than magic. Because at least there is a magician with a wand making a rabbit "pop into existence" from a hat.

 

[food4thought]

When I lookup up 'nothing', it states 'not anything, not a single thing.' This would imply anything, everything, everywhere. According to such a conceptual definition, I'm sure God is not nothing, is He?

How might one determine which definition is correct? (yours, mine, other)

Hope you don't mind me butting in, cvanwey, but I think you should look up the definition of "thing". God is not a thing (which implies creation per Webster's, 1828), but is an uncreated eternal incorporeal Spirit which does not require any "thing" for His existence. He, who had no beginning, stands outside our space-time universe, which had a beginning. In the absence of space-time, beginning has no meaning.
Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[cvanwey]

Perhaps you are correct. Which is why it is more logical and reasonable to assume that something created the universe as opposed to nothing creating the universe. Which to me seems more absurd than magic. Because at least there is a magician with a wand making a rabbit "pop into existence" from a hat.

I too, for decades, adopted your view, asking the question, 'how can something come from nothing?' Until I researched it some more, it was one of the very few things which really kept me 100% locked into Christianity.

As of late, I've been exploring the concept, asking myself, if this were true, then why are the vast majority of scientists not pointing to a first cause/mover argument? I mean, >80% of America is Christian after all.

I am not one to jump on a band wagon, and join the crowd. I always try to be honest with myself, regardless of whether I like actual reality, or not. I do wish that when I die, I will ascend to a Utopian society forever, where I can possibly see all my loved ones again forever.

I too, take your view, that zero + zero always equals zero. But as more discovery comes to light, it 'appears' to become more apparent that everything, which exists, always was, just in a differing form. If this 'IS' the case, then where's the need for a 'creator'? Creators create things. Creators poof things 'into' existence.

Many concepts are very hard to grasp, even when proven. Gravity, black holes, etc... still boggle my brain. Thus far, none of this has been demonstrated to have a 'guiding hand'.

If the universe always was, meaning, eternal, changed form, or was in a prior state before the known current 'universe', then the question, 'who banged the big bang' becomes as superfluous as the examples questions already given (i.e.) what's slower than stop?, what's colder than absolute zero?, or, what's faster than the speed of light?

So, there appears to be some 'possible' dichotomy. First cause (or) always was.

Me being intellectual honest with myself, the first cause argument actually appeals more, because it's easier to grasp. However, many scientific principles exist today, which are virtually irrefutable, in which I just cannot grasp, even today. But I do not then invent my own alternate conclusion.

Here's an analogy I like to present, in rebuttal to people stating, 'Science is always changing, how do you know scientists are not wrong?" In which I answer, 'Yes, 500 years ago, most scientists thought the world was flat. However, in light of the prevailing evidence since, do you honestly 'feel' NEW evidence will ever come to light, again favoring a flat earth in the future?' We may later conclude differing spherical shapes, but it would be fairly absurd to conclude that later evidence will again validate a flat earth.

The more we gain, the more we 'know.'

Your thoughts????

 

[cvanwey]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, cvanwey, but I think you should look up the definition of "thing". God is not a thing (which implies creation per Webster's, 1828), but is an uncreated eternal incorporeal Spirit which does not require any "thing" for His existence. He, who had no beginning, stands outside our space-time universe, which had a beginning. In the absence of space-time, beginning has no meaning.
Hope this helps;
Michael

Please respond to post #31 if you wish? I trust this may be at the core of many possible ideas.

Thnx

 

[cvanwey]

It is juvenile. For all you know it's vitally important for you to not have that toe; you're fixated on some thing that you want to have and playing a 12 year old's line of "dad won't give me what I want, what a dick".

Quit whining.

I feel you've completely missed the point, but thnx.

 

[cvanwey]

“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.”

C.S. Lewis

The difference being... We have knowledge, understanding, and definitions of our sun; which is also observable under many independent conditions in an objective way globally.

Can one state any of this for your specific claimed God?

The statement above presupposes not only a singular God, but a very specific asserted God.

 

[AvgJoe]

Before I delve into these asserted claims, are you even open for debate on this stated evidence??? If you are certain they are true, and nothing can persuade you otherwise, regardless of what may discovered, then I'm not really going to bother at this juncture (but may down the road). This will take some digging to validate or reject, from my own 'objective' findings.

Sure, I'll listen to anything you have to say on the matter. I'm not closed minded. If something is proven to be wrong, I don't continue to believe that it's right.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure, I'll listen to anything you have to say on the matter. I'm not closed minded. If something is proven to be wrong, I don't continue to believe that it's right.

Hmm..

Well then, we have a rather large conundrum...

(In post #10, you stated after asked):

What would make you no longer believe in Christianity?

(Then you replied):

Absolutely nothing

****************

So which one appears false? This response, (or) post #10? There was a very specific reason I asked this before exploring the link you provided

Thank you

 

[chilehed]

I feel you've completely missed the point, but thnx.

It sounded to me like the point is you won't believe in God because he won't perform your pet miracle for you. If that's not what you meant, I apologise.

 

[cvanwey]

It sounded to me like the point is you won't believe in God because he won't perform your pet miracle for you. If that's not what you meant, I apologise.

I just find it hard to believe this is the message you came await with, unless you only read the one sentence.

 

[AvgJoe]

So which one appears false? This response, (or) post #10?

Neither, they are both true.

1) If something is proven to be false, I will not continue to believe that it's true.

2) Absolutely nothing would make me no longer believe in Christianity because I know, for a fact, that it's true. Just like I know, for a fact, that the chair I'm sitting in will support me.

 

[cvanwey]

Neither, they are both true.

1) If something is proven to be false, I will not continue to believe that it's true.

2) Absolutely nothing would make me no longer believe in Christianity because I know, for a fact, that it's true. Just like I know, for a fact, that the chair I'm sitting in will support me.

I don't see many debate forums, for the existence of 'chairs'? Nor, I also imagine you would not associate with them, even if there was ;-)