Why is there something instead of nothing?

[quatona]

Logic is the opiate of the Atheist.

I´m pretty sure that you, just like anybody else, insist on the "opiate" logic - except in those cases where logic becomes inconvenient to you.

 

[True Scotsman]

For you that's true.

Just a few posts ago you said you didn't hold a primacy of consciousness metaphysics but here you are again talking about something being true for me but not for you. Priceless.

 

[Colter]

I´m pretty sure that you, just like anybody else, insist on the "opiate" logic - except in those cases where logic becomes inconvenient to you.

This quote addresses the issue better than I can:


Philosophic Co-ordination


(1135.7) 103:6.5 "A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.

(1136.1) 103:6.6 Always must man’s inner spirit depend for its expression and self-realization upon the mechanism and technique of the mind. Likewise must man’s outer experience of material reality be predicated on the mind consciousness of the experiencing personality. Therefore are the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, human experiences always correlated with the mind function and conditioned, as to their conscious realization, by the mind activity. Man experiences matter in his mind; he experiences spiritual reality in the soul but becomes conscious of this experience in his mind. The intellect is the harmonizer and the ever-present conditioner and qualifier of the sum total of mortal experience. Both energy-things and spirit values are colored by their interpretation through the mind media of consciousness." UB 1955

 

[Colter]

Just a few posts ago you said you didn't hold a primacy of consciousness metaphysics but here you are again talking about something being true for me but not for you. Priceless.

I never used the term "primacy of consciousness" you heard that somehow. You seem to translate everything into Randphonics.

 

[quatona]

"This quote addresses the issue better than I can:"
Well, maybe ti addresses it better than you can, but then again it doesn´t address it at all.

 

[True Scotsman]

I never used the term "primacy of consciousness" you heard that somehow. You seem to translate everything into Randphonics.

"I don't have a primacy of consciousness metaphysics created by a self important women to weak to quit smoking, to proud to ask for help, forced into Social Security and Medicare in contrast to her life long conservative philosophies."

Are these not your words? Ayn Rand did not "create" the primacy of consciousness principle. It is explicitly affirmed in the Bible in Mathew 17:20 and in Genesis as well as many other places. It goes back at least as far as Plato who held the primacy of consciousness in his metaphysics.

Whether or not Ayn Rand smoked or collected social security (which she paid into more than most people will earn in their lifetimes!) has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the principle. It obtains whether Ayn Rand had an affair or not. How pathetic that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you are incapable of dealing with the idea.

Your statement that something is true for me but not true for you regarding a fundamental principle is an affirmation of the POC and elsewhere you explicitly rejected the POE. This is what happens when you take things on faith. You also accept all of the premises which are implicit in the concept. This is why you keep making these errors. I think you need to put down the Urantia Book and pick up a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Its not arrogant because I know the presence of the spirit but make no claim of an absolute knowledge of or comprehension of the I AM.

I wasn't talking about understanding God fully.

I'm not saying that you personally are arrogant (you could be the most humble person in your neighborhood for all I know), but your position is essentially arrogant because you think that you can correctly claim that God's existence is self-evident without further substantiation. You seem to think that you can avoid logic altogether in making that claim -- that you are above logic itself, and indirectly atheists -- which does fit the definition of arrogance: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities".

I don't think Atheist are low, only too smart for your own good.

So, we're "too logical" and now "too smart" as well. Keep 'em coming.

many of the atheist that I have encountered look down on religionist with snide contempt! Bill Maher actually made a movie about it.

Yes, no doubt. There are Christians who look down on atheists with snide contempt as well. Neither justifies the other.

However, I'm not trying to evaluate anyone's character. A position can be arrogant without the person being snide or contemptuous.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

I wasn't talking about understanding God fully.

I'm not saying that you personally are arrogant (you could be the most humble person in your neighborhood for all I know), but your position is essentially arrogant because you think that you can correctly claim that God's existence is self-evident without further substantiation. You seem to think that you can avoid logic altogether in making that claim -- that you are above logic itself, and indirectly atheists -- which does fit the definition of arrogance: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities".



So, we're "too logical" and now "too smart" as well. Keep 'em coming.



Yes, no doubt. There are Christians who look down on atheists with snide contempt as well. Neither justifies the other.

However, I'm not trying to evaluate anyone's character. A position can be arrogant without the person being snide or contemptuous.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I can testify about my spirit birth and relationship with God, however no amount of proof will satisfy someone who hasn't personally experienced such an unanticipated, indescribable transformation. This would be particularly true of persons who consciously work against it. Even when presented with the miraculous the Atheist goes to work trying to explain away the obvious because such a cognitive dissonance would mean that you would have to let go of many of your own cherished beliefs.

Besides, we don't approach God through the miracle, we approach the miracle through God.

 

[Colter]

"I don't have a primacy of consciousness metaphysics created by a self important women to weak to quit smoking, to proud to ask for help, forced into Social Security and Medicare in contrast to her life long conservative philosophies."

Are these not your words? Ayn Rand did not "create" the primacy of consciousness principle. It is explicitly affirmed in the Bible in Mathew 17:20 and in Genesis as well as many other places. It goes back at least as far as Plato who held the primacy of consciousness in his metaphysics.

Whether or not Ayn Rand smoked or collected social security (which she paid into more than most people will earn in their lifetimes!) has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the principle. It obtains whether Ayn Rand had an affair or not. How pathetic that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks because you are incapable of dealing with the idea.

Your statement that something is true for me but not true for you regarding a fundamental principle is an affirmation of the POC and elsewhere you explicitly rejected the POE. This is what happens when you take things on faith. You also accept all of the premises which are implicit in the concept. This is why you keep making these errors. I think you need to put down the Urantia Book and pick up a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

I get confused when you use these narrow terms, POE or POC. When you say that I support the POC would it be my consciousness or Gods that I'm supposedly advancing?

 

[quatona]

I can testify about my spirit birth and relationship with God, however no amount of proof will satisfy someone who hasn't personally experienced such an unanticipated, indescribable transformation.

The personal testimony of an anonymous on an internet forum about his own spiritual birth is very far from being proof or even only evidence.
So your assertion that "no amount of proof" will be satisfactory or convincing is baseless.
I imagine that it´s very unfortunate and frustrating to be empty handed when it comes to supporting one´s personal experiences - but blaming this fact on the audience is, well, a convenient side-tracking.

This would be particularly true of persons who consciously work against it. Even when presented with the miraculous the Atheist goes to work trying to explain away the obvious because such a cognitive dissonance would mean that you would have to let go of many of your own cherished beliefs.

Whatever uncharitable preconceptions help you through the night....

 

[KCfromNC]

Logic is the opiate of the Atheist.

You're wrong. I know this since it is sunny here today. Don't try and use any of that atheist logic to try and prove me wrong, either. We both know that doesn't apply to matters of faith.

Without all the cultural baggage surrounding the word "god", this is basically your argument in a nutshell. If we can just assert that we know random things for no reason, the conversation is going to go off in the weeds very quickly.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, we're "too logical" and now "too smart" as well. Keep 'em coming.

You have to wonder who the target audience for this product is when the marketing uses "too logical" and "too smart" as insults towards outsiders in an attempt to create a bond with the marks. It reminds me of a quote from "Bob" of the church of the subgenuis. It won't make it through the filters here, but search for "Bob and they'll treat you like an equal" to see what I mean.

 

[Colter]

The personal testimony of an anonymous on an internet forum about his own spiritual birth is very far from being proof or even only evidence.
So your assertion that "no amount of proof" will be satisfactory or convincing is baseless.
I imagine that it´s very unfortunate and frustrating to be empty handed when it comes to supporting one´s personal experiences - but blaming this fact on the audience is, well, a convenient side-tracking.

Whatever uncharitable preconceptions help you through the night....

I don't lack proof sufficient for myself, the Atheist who joins a Christian form of people who know God, is the one at the disadvantage. Your doctrines of doubt are what is in need of defense, we aren't lost here.

Aren't their Atheist forms where doubters can commiserate over the doctrines of ultimate meaningless in eternal death?

 

[Colter]

You have to wonder who the target audience for this product is when the marketing uses "too logical" and "too smart" as insults towards outsiders in an attempt to create a bond with the marks. It reminds me of a quote from "Bob" of the church of the subgenuis. It won't make it through the filters here, but search for "Bob and they'll treat you like an equal" to see what I mean.

The term "too smart" obviously tweaks the Atheist position, but let me be more clear. Too smart in this context would be akin to the bright, know it all child who refuses his parents wise council, maintains a belligerent state of mind wherein he or she can only learn things the hard way. Sometimes, years later when they themselves become parents, they then see the wisdom which their parents had worked so hard to convince them of.

Former Atheist that I know look back at how childish and hard headed their position had been. They are embarrassed at having taken themselves so seriously. But to be fair they describe the spirit birth as being something super-intellectual, a reality that they had never, could never comprehend until they were ready.

When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear.

 

[True Scotsman]

I get confused when you use these narrow terms, POE or POC. When you say that I support the POC would it be my consciousness or Gods that I'm supposedly advancing?

Yes, you are often confused. Taking things on faith always leads to confusion. I'm talking about any consciousness at all Colter, be it a god, a person or a chipmunk. The issue of metaphysical primacy has specifically to do with the necessary relationship between consciousness and existence. Do the object of consciousness conform to the subject or is it the other way around. Existence cannot hold primacy and not hold primacy at the same time and in the same respect. That's a contradiction. That is why any argument for a creator god is instantly self refuting. If even one consciousness enjoys primacy over it's objects it means that consciousness has primacy.
The statement that these are narrow terms is laughable since all of the concepts involved are the most basic, most fundamental concepts there are. "existence" denotes everything that exists, everything that has existed and everything that will exist in the future. "Consciousness" denotes all consciousnesses. "objects" means any object of consciousness whether it is an entity, action or attribute or some other class of existent that hasn't been discovered yet.

No, these are not narrow terms. They are so fundamental that an error involving them renders a whole worldview false. This is the fatal flaw of theism and Platonism and Kantianism and many other worldviews. Maybe you should actually learn what the fundamentals are of your own worldview first and then you will avoid contradicting yourself so much.

 

[bhsmte]

The term "too smart" obviously tweaks the Atheist position, but let me be more clear. Too smart in this context would be akin to the bright, know it all child who refuses his parents wise council, maintains a belligerent state of mind wherein he or she can only learn things the hard way. Sometimes, years later when they themselves become parents, they then see the wisdom which their parents had worked so hard to convince them of.

Former Atheist that I know look back at how childish and hard headed their position had been. They are embarrassed at having taken themselves so seriously. But to be fair they describe the spirit birth as being something super-intellectual, a reality that they had never, could never comprehend until they were ready.

When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear.

You actually mean, when the psyche is ready, the teacher will appear.

 

[True Scotsman]

I don't lack proof sufficient for myself, the Atheist who joins a Christian form of people who know God, is the one at the disadvantage. Your doctrines of doubt are what is in need of defense, we aren't lost here.

Aren't their Atheist forms where doubters can commiserate over the doctrines of ultimate meaningless in eternal death?

Yes you are right that we are at a disadvantage. We have no alternative but to imagine the things you are talking about, as you have already conceded, and that puts us at a disadvantage. We recognize a fundamental distinction between the imaginary and reality and so we are constrained to require logical arguments and objective evidence before accepting something as true. We can not believe in anything we want to and call it true.

 

[quatona]

I don't lack proof sufficient for myself,

the Atheist who joins a Christian form of people who know God, is the one at the disadvantage.

Since you are the one unable to substantiate which you would us believe you are the one at the disadvantage, in these discussions.

Your doctrines of doubt are what is in need of defense, we aren't lost here.

"My doctrine of doubt"?? Please don´t make up positions for me - it makes you look dishonest.

Aren't their Atheist forms where doubters can commiserate over the doctrines of ultimate meaningless in eternal death?

I don´t know and I don´t care. I am here on a forum for conversations between Christians and non-Christians.

Aren´t their [sic!] Christian Only areas on CF where believers can boast about their own special abilities, without being asked for substantiation?

On another note, I don´t hold a "doctrine of ultimate meaninglessness in eternal death". You aren´t even trying anymore.

 

[Colter]

You actually mean, when the psyche is ready, the teacher will appear.

However you want to frame it, when the animal origin ego of the human becomes sufficiently dissatisfied with itself, then and there great potential comes into being for the faith candidate. That was my experience. It may one day happen to you, then you will understand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I can testify about my spirit birth and relationship with God, however no amount of proof will satisfy someone who hasn't personally experienced such an unanticipated, indescribable transformation. This would be particularly true of persons who consciously work against it. Even when presented with the miraculous the Atheist goes to work trying to explain away the obvious because such a cognitive dissonance would mean that you would have to let go of many of your own cherished beliefs.

Besides, we don't approach God through the miracle, we approach the miracle through God.

If I understand what you are saying, one has to believe in the deity to experience the miracle that makes you have faith in the existence of said deity... Your belief is circular