Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[ElijahW]

Natural philosophy cannot in any way inform supernatural philosophy.

I don’t know what you think I’m saying. My point is that supernatural philosophy isn’t an influence or relatable to this conversation and I have no idea who you have in mind when you say supernatural philosophy.

I'm going to look past change being a necessity of activity. That still isn't intelligence by any definition of the word. Intelligence is the ability to make choices and decisions based on information collected. Intelligence is not ideas. What you're describing is just a really big book. And people do collect ideas, they're called memories.

The choice is being made based on collected information. The choice that is made leads to creation and is supported by the ideas/ideals that are collected. It’s not a whole lot different then when you gather a few ideas to form a plan of action except this time all the ideas are gathered to form a plan to build the universe.

Then that's what I said earlier: we cannot interact with God. The problem with this is that we will never "see" or "know" God, and God can't "see" or "know" us.

We move in him and him in us so I don’t know in what way you want him to know us more. Yes you can’t see him and you can’t know him but you can understand why that is so.

I'm unsure what this question means.

An object changes by motion, decay or combustion typically. In what way do you suggest that the initial cause of the universe changed?

Because whatever it is acting upon must change. If the actor and what it is acting upon do not change then there isn't an action. If what the actor is acting upon does change then the actor is acting on something different than what it was acting upon previously, and has also changed.

The sun for example performs a constant activity. Its activity doesn’t change when our planet starts to convert its energy to life. Yes, the sun can burn out, and there is change going on, but the sun’s activity doesn’t change due to something being changed by it. Same principle applied to God.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Just explain how you know that the voice in my head, that sounds just like me, isn't actually me.

In what way do you think it is you?
The voice isn’t you anymore then the scent you give off is you. It may smell like you but it isn’t actually you, but instead an emergent property from your physical activity. Now this emergent property isn’t actually a new type of matter or organism but simple organic structures that are also used in the building of the larger more complex body. Similarly your thoughts are produced from stimuli in the physical world but what the thoughts are actually made of isn’t a new form of matter/energy but a fundamental property of matter and energy that is being used to convert energy to usable information.

Regardless if what you are seeing in your thoughts is a new emergent property to matter, or the non-material building blocks to matter, what you are observing is another category of sensation. Just like you can sense temperature, light, sound and pressure, you can sense the thoughts within your mind. Just like those other stimuli can be filtered by focusing your vision or hearing, your thoughts can be focused as well. This allows some the ability to control their thoughts which will show that the voice can be shut off or changed to sound like someone else. When this happens an individual can see that what they think is actually them is just another kind of sensation/observation but instead of light, it is ideas. A lot of people are unaware of this, and like when you watch a good television show, you get so pulled into it you start responding to the action, because you have projected yourself into the scene. People are constantly pulled into what the voice in their head is saying as if it was actually them doing the talking. When in reality it’s just another stream of stimuli going across our perception..

And what does the soul do? How do we interact with the soul?

The soul observes. There is no interaction with it but awareness of it comes with the above example of shutting down the voice and thoughts in your mind and observing nothingness. When you observe nothingness you realize that it’s not really nothing but your observation of the nothingness is actually something and it is that awareness of the observer/soul that also helps separate yourself from the voice in your head.

Okay, but what

is it? Why is it's existence necessary if we don't actually know what it does?

What they think it does varies on what you think the initial state of the universe is, it’s not that philosophers don’t have an idea about what they think it does they just don’t all think the same. It becomes necessary because people have difficulty explaining the world in a purely material fashion so have to theorize non-material elements. The Logos, like Plato’s forms, comes from theories of materialists Heraclitus and Democritus respectively. The concepts just evolved and were attempted to be used to harmonize/rationalize the belief in gods that were popularized by the Greek poets.

How does the Logos relate to this analogy? The Logos is a mind? Is it a sensory system?

It’s an organization process that is active in the physical world and since your brain is in the physical world it is active in organizing your thinking/thoughts. The process that is happening in a larger scale in the universe is happening on a smaller scale within the mind to produce order.

Matter and energy (technically just energy). How does spirit relate to that at all? For that matter what is the spirit?

Ok what is energy? What is it made of? What is that made of? Do you think you could answer that line of questions forever and never break matter into something that was non-matter? “Not-matter” is what spirit is.

Only because you assume it is possible to actually be informed.

Not Informed enough to have certainty but certainly to understand the conversation and options rationally enough to know that asking for physical evidence of non-physical objects is absurd. Which I assume is the standard of being informed you are working with there.

 

[ElijahW]

So, when did God begin? When will God end?

Before the creation of the universe. No reason to assume God will ever end.

Okay, did God exist before the universe was created? Did God exist before change? What occurred before the universe was created?

-If so, once the universe was created, wouldn't that be a pretty big change for God? To exist without change, and then to exist with change? What changed so that the universe was created?

-If not, was God created with the universe?

God comes before the universe and there was no time before God because that is the label of the beginning. Because there was no time before God, nothing changed because there is nothing to change from, to. It’s not like the nothing was actually something and it changed to cause creation but there is nothing before God to change.

A creative principle distinct from creation? No, I don't think so. "Creative" is simply the adjective form that accompanies the noun "Creation."

Lost me. The creation of the universe is ongoing. It’s not a temporal event in the past.

Oh, well then I am. Can you provide some other manner of objectively knowing something?

And what is Justin's understanding based on?

Reason is the word I usually choose but I’m sure there are better words that are easier to define that illustrate the thinking process that separates what is possible from the impossible..

Firstly, I'm not resting on any evidence. I have no evidence at all. There is no evidence. This is the problem. What would I base my position on? Without evidence there can be no reasoning.

What reasoning lead you to make the positive claim that God is unchanging? Or that God is intelligent? Or that we have a soul? Or that the Logos exists? How can we possibly reason something without evidence?

There not being evidence is your evidence for your position.

Because the alternative aren’t possible/rational is how you reason something without evidence. Like believing in God is rational because believing in an universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time is irrational. Or deciding about God changing or. unchanging. If Matter is able to be broke down infinitely or not. Is who you are what you are observing or the observer.

Yes, most specifically by myself. I'm not going to start making claims that I don't know are true. I can have an opinion over what the best movie is, or who the greatest blues guitarist is, because these subjects are subjective.

Discussions about what is true and what is not are not subjective conversations, and if they do not contain objective evidence then they can't be objective conversations either. So what's the point in having an opinion? You want me to take a subjective claim on what should be an objective topic?

Yeah, I think that is the obvious thing to do because I think that is how we can have a rational conversation about which beliefs are rational and which ones aren’t. Even if both parties realize that certainty of truth will never be attained with this method, it will get them closer than one person demanding physical proof of non-physical things.

Why would it ever be called into question? If people are making claims without evidence, that should be called into question: How do you know? We can discuss it, but not with the assumption that the claims are based in reason. Reason requires facts. Facts require evidence.

Only if you can explain an alternative theory. If someone says the universe had a beginning and they have no evidence because none can be had then you need to produce a theory of how it could not have a beginning and if there is evidence for that then you win. If you don’t have evidence for your theory then it is going to come down to which is the more reasonable assumption.

I don't understand. I don't know that the spiritual realm exists at all. Perhaps the spiritual realm is in a dynamic, constant, infinite flux that is constantly changing in every possible way for all I know. I don't get to make the rules up.

It’s just like the God question about change. When we think of change, we base that on what we see with the physical but when contemplating non-physical entities, how they can change becomes more difficult to explain. It changing in every possible way is impossible because we are speaking of something without body. So in what way can i be in flux?

I've been contemplating these ideas for the better part of my life. Consider the posibility that I'm not beneath you on this. The idea that there is a single concept of God to be understood is ridiculous.

You misunderstood me. I was saying I’m dumb so you can do it. Not a single concept of God but reason leads you a certain direction depending on how well you utilize it.

Right, and we shouldn't do that. If I were a juror in a murder case, making a verdict before both sides had presented all of their evidence is not only stupid, but unethical. Why are the standards different for this?

Both sides have presented their case though. It was presented over 2000 years ago. It would be like during the jury deliberation refusing to decide because you want more evidence when all the evidence has been presented.

Then those people are stupid. With no evidence what would I base my opinion off of? What are they basing their opinion on? Taste, values, art, pretty stories, superstition. Subjective reasoning for an objective opinion?

They assume you are basing your opinions on what you wish was right, like most people do. There is no way you can prove otherwise, it’s just impolite to accuse people of having a bias and being dishonest about having an opinion on the subject.

Firstly, evidence, not proof. And I didn't say that opinions don't need to be. Objective opinions need to be. Otherwise, it's just subjective opinion.

I’m still not getting the fact behind you labeling one opinion suitable for discussion and another one not. What happens if you tried to support materialism instead of demanding physical evidence of non physical objects?

No, I don't. I can believe that the moon is made of play-doh if I want to. I simply cannot it claim it to be true without rational explanation. I don't have to rationalize my disbelief either. As for rationalizing disbelief, that Tao Te Ching claims that the universe is in perfect order. It doesn't explain how this is known, it just makes the claim. Thus, that is reason enough for me to not believe what follows.

True that you can speak about what you choose. Choosing to not support what you believe because you realize you can’t is going to make you look bad in the eyes of some. Not believing in something you don’t understand means you don’t know what you do believe in because you aren’t aware of what you are rejecting.

Why?

Playing dumb won’t get us far in the conversation and will typically lead to insults after a person’s civility towards the game wears down. Once one person is aware that you realize that physical evidence is impossible you asking for it is insulting.

Rational understanding is based on evidence, facts, and logic. Irrational understanding is due to a lack of, or faulty evidence, facts or logic.

I agree.

A required question would be "How do I know?"

You develop and learn to recognize a rational understanding of God and learn to distinguish it from a superstitious one. Then you can ask a few questions about God and see if I answer them rationally instead of irrationaly asking for physical evidence for something that no physical evidence is possible.

 

[JGG]

I don’t know what you think I’m saying. My point is that supernatural philosophy isn’t an influence or relatable to this conversation and I have no idea who you have in mind when you say supernatural philosophy.

Theology, religion, superstition.

The choice is being made based on collected information. The choice that is made leads to creation and is supported by the ideas/ideals that are collected. It’s not a whole lot different then when you gather a few ideas to form a plan of action except this time all the ideas are gathered to form a plan to build the universe.

So what makes this choice? If it is God then I will point out that making a choice requires, and is change. It is also exactly like human intelligence.

We move in him and him in us so I don’t know in what way you want him to know us more. Yes you can’t see him and you can’t know him but you can understand why that is so.

Moving (both into us, or into It) requires change.

An object changes by motion, decay or combustion typically. In what way do you suggest that the initial cause of the universe changed?[/FONT]

I think you'll be shocked by my response: I don't know, and don't pretend to. Those three could all be perfectly acceptable to me, although I wouldn't assume that there aren't other options.

The sun for example performs a constant activity. Its activity doesn’t change when our planet starts to convert its energy to life. Yes, the sun can burn out, and there is change going on, but the sun’s activity doesn’t change due to something being changed by it. Same principle applied to God.

I'm not sure if this is the analogy you'd best use. Firstly, the sun is in constant change. While you may say that it has a constant activity, performing that activity requires constant change. The sun generates energy through nuclear fusion which is atoms joining together, and creating an explosion. The Sun's combustion is hardly constant. While it always does it, the output is unpredictable. Gravity, pressure, dust, stellar wind, magnetic fields,and other material cause changes to it's activity, even resulting in solar flares. Furthermore, the Sun is travelling through the Milky Way, getting brighter, getting hotter, and getting older.

In what way do you think it is you?

The voice isn’t you anymore then the scent you give off is you. It may smell like you but it isn’t actually you, but instead an emergent property from your physical activity.

You're going to go Buddhist on me? Okay, fair enough, I'll accept that.

Now this emergent property isn’t actually a new type of matter or organism but simple organic structures that are also used in the building of the larger more complex body. Similarly your thoughts are produced from stimuli in the physical world but what the thoughts are actually made of isn’t a new form of matter/energy but a fundamental property of matter and energy that is being used to convert energy to usable information.

Regardless if what you are seeing in your thoughts is a new emergent property to matter, or the non-material building blocks to matter, what you are observing is another category of sensation. Just like you can sense temperature, light, sound and pressure, you can sense the thoughts within your mind. Just like those other stimuli can be filtered by focusing your vision or hearing, your thoughts can be focused as well. This allows some the ability to control their thoughts which will show that the voice can be shut off or changed to sound like someone else. When this happens an individual can see that what they think is actually them is just another kind of sensation/observation but instead of light, it is ideas. A lot of people are unaware of this, and like when you watch a good television show, you get so pulled into it you start responding to the action, because you have projected yourself into the scene. People are constantly pulled into what the voice in their head is saying as if it was actually them doing the talking. When in reality it’s just another stream of stimuli going across our perception..

As a psychologist, I do not disagree with any of this. It is possible. However, it is merely one possibility, and to follow it requires that we throw away the concept of "freewill."

The soul observes. There is no interaction with it but awareness of it comes with the above example of shutting down the voice and thoughts in your mind and observing nothingness. When you observe nothingness you realize that it’s not really nothing but your observation of the nothingness is actually something and it is that awareness of the observer/soul that also helps separate yourself from the voice in your head.

This I have a problem with. Firstly, you now have to define "yourself." What is it that has been observing the stimuli and voices in your head?

What they think it does varies on what you think the initial state of the universe is, it’s not that philosophers don’t have an idea about what they think it does they just don’t all think the same
It becomes necessary because people have difficulty explaining the world in a purely material fashion so have to theorize non-material elements. The Logos, like Plato’s forms, comes from theories of materialists Heraclitus and Democritus respectively. The concepts just evolved and were attempted to be used to harmonize/rationalize the belief in gods that were popularized by the Greek poets..

Firstly, the philosophers think so? How do they know? Secondly, the idea that these philosophers created the Logos to solve the philosophical problem of (what is essentially) "I don't know," except all they've done is made up an explanation to fill a gap. There's no reason to believe them.

It’s an organization process that is active in the physical world and since your brain is in the physical world it is active in organizing your thinking/thoughts. The process that is happening in a larger scale in the universe is happening on a smaller scale within the mind to produce order.

Okay, there's the claim. How do you know it's true?

Ok what is energy? What is it made of? What is that made of? Do you think you could answer that line of questions forever and never break matter into something that was non-matter? “Not-matter” is what spirit is.

Again, you'll be shocked at my answer: I don't know what energy is made of. It's entirely possible that it is made of nothing. In fact, it's possible that energy is simply "non-matter".

However, your claim is that spirit is non-matter. How do you know? And at that point what is "spirit" it simply seems as though you've taken something that we know nothing about, and given it a familiar name.

Not Informed enough to have certainty but certainly to understand the conversation and options rationally enough to know that asking for physical evidence of non-physical objects is absurd. Which I assume is the standard of being informed you are working with there.

By informed, I mean we know all of the options. I can't discuss the options because I only know the very few I've been exposed to. The options are pretty much limitless. It's not just what I can imagine and comprehend, but everything I can't.

 

[JGG]

Before the creation of the universe. No reason to assume God will ever end.

Okay, but when was God created, and how will God end? God necessarily has to begin and end. Otherwise, God would be infinite, which we know is impossible.

But "before" is time relative. Time did not exist until the universe. How could God exist "before" time without time? It suggests that time is bigger than God.

[quoteBecause there was no time before God, nothing changed because there is nothing to change from, to. It’s not like the nothing was actually something and it changed to cause creation but there is nothing before God to change.

Except God. If God exists, then God is something. And if something changed it could only have been God. Thus we cannot claim that God is unchanging.

Lost me. The creation of the universe is ongoing. It’s not a temporal event in the past.

Okay, but the universe has been "created." Otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Reason is the word I usually choose but I’m sure there are better words that are easier to define that illustrate the thinking process that separates what is possible from the impossible..

Possible and impossible are tricky. It is possible that years ago a planet with an advanced civilization exploded, and sent a lone baby to crash land on Earth. It is possible that that baby was raised in a household in Kansas, and absorbed the rays of the sun develop incredible powers that defy known physical theory, and has become a super-man, if you will. It is possible that this man is currently disguised as a mild-mannered reporter in a major American metropolis. It is possible, but not necessarily so.

It is possible that when I knock on wood I increase my chances of something good happening to me. I might not be able to demonstrate it, but it might be so. However, claiming that this is true, without being able to explain how you know, that's superstition.

There not being evidence is your evidence for your position.[/FONT]

Not exactly. My not knowing things is the evidence for my position. I have ample evidence that there are lots of things I don't know.

Because the alternative aren’t possible/rational is how you reason something without evidence. Like believing in God is rational because believing in an universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time is irrational. Or deciding about God changing or. unchanging. If Matter is able to be broke down infinitely or not. Is who you are what you are observing or the observer.

Except that you're viewing everything as a dichotomy. It doesn't necessarily has to be x or y, maybe it's z, or some letter in an alphabet that hasn't been discovered, or invented yet. Saying that the alternative isn't possible is not evidence of your position. Perhaps there is another alternative that we have not yet considered, or could not consider. At one point in time the idea that we were on a planet, in a solar system, hurtling through the cosmos, among comets, meteors, stars, nebulas, and quasars was not even something we could comprehend, much less present as an alternative to the world ends behind those mountains. And yet, here we are.

Yeah, I think that is the obvious thing to do because I think that is how we can have a rational conversation about which beliefs are rational and which ones aren’t. Even if both parties realize that certainty of truth will never be attained with this method, it will get them closer than one person demanding physical proof of non-physical things.

But you can't have an actual rational subjective discussion. Subjective discussion is based in the understanding that there is no rational basis for it, and that the views are specifically subjective.

Only if you can explain an alternative theory. If someone says the universe had a beginning and they have no evidence because none can be had then you need to produce a theory of how it could not have a beginning and if there is evidence for that then you win.

Clearly, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm right. I am merely saying I don't know. I am not making a claim, or counter claim. I am simply saying I don't believe you. I have no obligation to believe your claim just because you've made it, or because you made your claim first, that would simply be arbitrary. You are still required to present fact and evidence. If you want to convince me that the universe had a beginning, then you have to show me evidence that it did indeed begin. I do not have to counter an evidenceless claim, but if I did, that argument would not require evidence either, I would merely have to say that I made my claim before you did, and you need to present evidence to show that I'm wrong.

I only have to point out that you have not presented a strong enough argument to persuade me to say "yes, you're right" for me to continue to say, "I don't believe you" and "I don't know."

If you don’t have evidence for your theory then it is going to come down to which is the more reasonable assumption.

Without evidence, neither is reasonable.

It’s just like the God question about change. When we think of change, we base that on what we see with the physical but when contemplating non-physical entities, how they can change becomes more difficult to explain.

How they can not change becomes difficult to explain too.

It changing in every possible way is impossible because we are speaking of something without body. So in what way can i be in flux?

They don't have bodies, how could they not be in flux?

Both sides have presented their case though. It was presented over 2000 years ago. It would be like during the jury deliberation refusing to decide because you want more evidence when all the evidence has been presented.

Both sides? What two sides do you think we're talking about here?

They assume you are basing your opinions on what you wish was right, like most people do. There is no way you can prove otherwise, it’s just impolite to accuse people of having a bias and being dishonest about having an opinion on the subject.

Everybody has a bias, myself included. Everybody bases their opinions on what they wish was right. Facts are demonstrated with evidence, not opinion. I at least recognize that my opinions are the result of bias, and so I don't use them. If people find this impolite, then I'm sorry, but I'm not going to treat opinion as fact, even my own, for the sake of politeness.

I’m still not getting the fact behind you labeling one opinion suitable for discussion and another one not. What happens if you tried to support materialism instead of demanding physical evidence of non physical objects?

Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective?

True that you can speak about what you choose. Choosing to not support what you believe because you realize you can’t is going to make you look bad in the eyes of some. Not believing in something you don’t understand means you don’t know what you do believe in because you aren’t aware of what you are rejecting.

Believing in something I don't understand means that I don't know what it is I believe because I'm not aware of what I'm accepting. Why is that better?

Do you believe in the theory of unsubstantiated operant awareness?

Playing dumb won’t get us far in the conversation and will typically lead to insults after a person’s civility towards the game wears down. Once one person is aware that you realize that physical evidence is impossible you asking for it is insulting.

I understand you're getting frustrated, but I'm not playing a game. The difference between us, is that I understand that I'm ignorant, and will always be ignorant. That's why I continue to say "I don't know." I don't use that as an excuse not to learn what I can, but I accept that I will never understand everything that I want to. I accept that I cannot treat my opinions as fact, and that I cannot make a claim without understanding it, and that requires explaining it with evidence. If I'm not prepared to make a claim, I cannot say I believe it.

I agree.

You develop and learn to recognize a rational understanding of God and learn to distinguish it from a superstitious one. Then you can ask a few questions about God and see if I answer them rationally instead of irrationaly asking for physical evidence for something that no physical evidence is possible.

If no physical evidence is possible then your answers cannot be rational, or without bias. Eventually, your explanation will have to come down to some form of physical evidence if you ever want to give an objective, and thus rational and unbiased explanation of God. Remember, every claim has to be substantiated somehow, and I will always ask "How do you know?"

What you don't seem to understand is, it's not irrational to ask for physical evidence for something which has been claimed to exist. It's irrational to claim that something exists without physical evidence in the first place.

 

[Ronald]

...I was also a Christian for over 20 years. I've read the Old and New Testament several times, and went to Bible study regularly throughout my teen years....
Well, I gave Christianity far more of a chance than most other religions, and it just doesn't ring for me.

What is your definition of being a Christian?
A Christian has an active, personal relationship with God. It is not something that your could have and then all of a sudden not have. It is like saying that you don't believe you have parents -- who've been loving you for the last 20 years and you just don't believe they exist. If you were an orphan and people told you that you had parents who loved you and some day they will come to get you and you waited and waited and after 20 years, they never called or sent letters and never showed up -- then you could say, I don't have any parents.
My Dad is an atheist. When he was ten years old, his father died and left his wife and eight children with two mortgages and no insurance. He said he got down on his knees and prayed to God to save his dying dad of TB ... but God didn't and so since then, he became an unbeliever. He didn't forgive his dad for not having insurance either. Many years later, my half-brother died and my Dad said that he believes in God even less ... "If there was one, how could he allow this to happen?"
Bad things happen and people lose their faith if it is weak with shallow roots. In the Parable of the Sower, seed fell on shallow soil and when the thorns and weeds (trials and tribulations)grew around the plant, it choked the life out of it. But it really hadn't been cared for and nourished properly.
You weren't born again. Once saved means always saved. Once you have been baptised by the Holy Spirit, you believe in God more than you believe in or trust yourself. But, I guess you feel that you have given God enough of your attention, Bible study and prayer and He did not answer ... the way you wanted Him to. What's your sad story?
One thing that I've always heard Christians say before they became Christians is that they felt an empty void in their lives, discontent and without hope or purpose. I don't really think at the end of your years, you can approach your death bed without being depressed and wondering what the real meaning and purpose of life is, without God. Judging from your response, you'll pridefully say you're content, find meaning and purpose and will leave a legacy to your beneficiaries and the world ... bravo!

 

[Non sequitur]

Someone just got told what's up about themselves.

 

[JGG]

What is your definition of being a Christian?

Someone who claims to be a Christian. Only way to fairly judge from my position.

A Christian has an active, personal relationship with God. It is not something that your could have and then all of a sudden not have.

Perhaps not, but it may be something one believes they have until they realize they don't. My point is that at the time I believed I had a personal relationship with God. Whether I did or not is irrelevant, as I believed at the time as much as anyone does now.

It is like saying that you don't believe you have parents -- who've been loving you for the last 20 years and you just don't believe they exist. If you were an orphan and people told you that you had parents who loved you and some day they will come to get you and you waited and waited and after 20 years, they never called or sent letters and never showed up -- then you could say, I don't have any parents.

God didn't send me letters and never showed up, and it's been 30 years. Can I say I don't have any God?

My Dad is an atheist. When he was ten years old, his father died and left his wife and eight children with two mortgages and no insurance. He said he got down on his knees and prayed to God to save his dying dad of TB ... but God didn't and so since then, he became an unbeliever. He didn't forgive his dad for not having insurance either. Many years later, my half-brother died and my Dad said that he believes in God even less ... "If there was one, how could he allow this to happen?"
Bad things happen and people lose their faith if it is weak with shallow roots. In the Parable of the Sower, seed fell on shallow soil and when the thorns and weeds (trials and tribulations)grew around the plant, it choked the life out of it. But it really hadn't been cared for and nourished properly.

You weren't born again.

Actually, I was.

Once saved means always saved.

Which is an easy post-hoc analysis.

Once you have been baptised by the Holy Spirit, you believe in God more than you believe in or trust yourself.

Frankly, that doesn't sound healthy.

But, I guess you feel that you have given God enough of your attention, Bible study and prayer and He did not answer ... the way you wanted Him to.

He didn't answer. Why would I keep asking? I moved on to other concepts. There are millions of them you know.

What's your sad story?

I have plenty, but I don't need any of them to not believe in God.

One thing that I've always heard Christians say before they became Christians is that they felt an empty void in their lives, discontent and without hope or purpose. I don't really think at the end of your years, you can approach your death bed without being depressed and wondering what the real meaning and purpose of life is, without God. Judging from your response, you'll pridefully say you're content, find meaning and purpose and will leave a legacy to your beneficiaries and the world ... bravo!

So, if I'm non-Christian and feel happy, content, and have a life of hope and purpose, then I'm prideful, but if I'm Christian then all is good?

Clearly you have nothing contribute except for the typical Christian self-righteous judgment. You're done here.

 

[Ccarper1]

A true Christian understands his life is fulfilled by doing the works of Jesus and God as a result, people who don't don't go to Heaven aka God reward..

Read my book or blog for deeper insight

 

[ElijahW]

Theology, religion, superstition.

I‘m not sure what I’m supposed to take from that. Theology and religion are not inherently superstitious. I can assume by “superstitious” you mean beliefs that aren’t supported with physical proof but that means that all theoretical physicists are superstitious by your standards. I’m fine using the words how you like but you are using the word “superstitious” atypically.

So what makes this choice? If it is God then I will point out that making a choice requires, and is change. It is also exactly like human intelligence.

God's activity produces the result but I’m not sure why you are assuming the activity changed.

Moving (both into us, or into It) requires change.

On our part, but why are you assuming on God’s part?

I think you'll be shocked by my response: I don't know, and don't pretend to. Those three could all be perfectly acceptable to me, although I wouldn't assume that there aren't other options.

Take the time to consider it. All three are forms of change found in matter and what we are looking for is not-matter but the source of matter.

I'm not sure if this is the analogy you'd best use. Firstly, the sun is in constant change. While you may say that it has a constant activity, performing that activity requires constant change. The sun generates energy through nuclear fusion which is atoms joining together, and creating an explosion. The Sun's combustion is hardly constant. While it always does it, the output is unpredictable. Gravity, pressure, dust, stellar wind, magnetic fields,and other material cause changes to it's activity, even resulting in solar flares. Furthermore, the Sun is travelling through the Milky Way, getting brighter, getting hotter, and getting older.

I pointed out that it was in the process of change but the point is that the activity of the sun doesn’t change if this planet reacts to it radiation and produces life.

You're going to go Buddhist on me? Okay, fair enough, I'll accept that.

As a psychologist, I do not disagree with any of this. It is possible. However, it is merely one possibility, and to follow it requires that we throw away the concept of "freewill."

Throw it, I don’t have any reason to believe in freewill.

This I have a problem with. Firstly, you now have to define "yourself." What is it that has been observing the stimuli and voices in your head?

It was the soul that was in discussion and what I was referring to as the self.

Firstly,

the philosophersthink so? How do they know? Secondly, the idea that these philosophers created the Logos to solve the philosophical problem of (what is essentially) "I don't know," except all they've done is made up an explanation to fill a gap. There's no reason to believe them.

They don’t know, they just assume that it is the reasonable position, because the alternative isn’t as reasonable. You either accept their reasoning as sound or see fallacies they are committing, then compare that to the alternative position.

Okay, there's the claim. How do you know it's true?

We are part of a larger system. What is active within the system is active within us. There is no other possibility unless you suggest we are somehow separate from the universe.

Again, you'll be shocked at my answer: I don't know what energy is made of. It's entirely possible that it is made of nothing. In fact, it's possible that energy is simply "non-matter".

However, your claim is that spirit is non-matter. How do you know? And at that point what is "spirit" it simply seems as though you've taken something that we know nothing about, and given it a familiar name.

Correct, we know nothing about non-matter but it has been discussed at length for thousands of years, and yes I chose the name that you would be familiar with. We know it’s non-matter because we are discussing there being something more than matter. Whether it exists or not you can argue, that it is not-matter is clear cut.

By informed, I mean we know all of the options. I can't discuss the options because I only know the very few I've been exposed to. The options are pretty much limitless. It's not just what I can imagine and comprehend, but everything I can't.

I think there is usually only a couple of options to each question so the choices are generally not that difficult. The number of questions may be cumbersome, or it could less than a dozen when you boil them all down.

 

[Ronald]

Someone who claims to be a Christian.

Wrong. A relationship means that God relates to you and YOU CLAIMED THAT HE NEVER DID, NEVER ANSWERED PRAYERS, DID ACKNOWLEDGE ANY CONFIRMATION BY HIM, DIDN'T SHOW UP!

YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING -- YOUR CLAIM -- NOT MINE!

You believed in the idea, the concept temporarily. A seed was thrown in your soil and it never grew.

Can I say I don't have any God?

Absolutely.

He didn't answer. Why would I keep asking?

So, if I'm non-Christian and feel happy, content, and have a life of hope and purpose, then I'm prideful, but if I'm Christian then all is good?

The pride of accomplishing something good is not what I'm talking about. It is the pride that says you don't need God, lifting yourself up as someone who is self-sufficient and the director of your own reality. As if you can do anything without Him! Are you in control of your heartbeat and all the healing bodily functions? In control of the events, plans and direction as well? Pride stands in the way of a relationship and you have this pride ... all atheists do!

Clearly you have nothing contribute except for the typical Christian self-righteous judgment. You're done here.

You are right, a shut door to your heart and ears that are closed won't receive anything. And you wonder why he hasn't shown up?
Yeah, I'm done.

 

[ElijahW]

Except God. If God exists, then God is something. And if something changed it could only have been God. Thus we cannot claim that God is unchanging.

The whole system may change because of God’s activity but why are we assuming that part of the system changes somehow?

Okay, but the universe has been "created." Otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

That is true but what we are talking about isn’t the time of creation but a noun that is responsible for creation.

Possible and impossible are tricky. It is possible that years ago a planet with an advanced civilization exploded, and sent a lone baby to crash land on Earth. It is possible that that baby was raised in a household in Kansas, and absorbed the rays of the sun develop incredible powers that defy known physical theory, and has become a

super-man, if you will. It is possible that this man is currently disguised as a mild-mannered reporter in a major American metropolis. It is possible, but not necessarily so.

It is possible that when I knock on wood I increase my chances of something good happening to me. I might not be able to demonstrate it, but it might be so. However, claiming that this is true, without being able to explain how you know, that's superstition.

Determining between probable and improbable may be tricky, but between possible and impossible shouldn’t be so tough, even when you include that any kind of temporal event is possible. Improbable things like aliens and luck may be a possible reality. But things that are truly impossible like someone being able to hold still on a moving planet or you jumping into a pool of water causing the planet to go nuclear are considered impossible because they would require things like breaking the known laws of nature or require doing two contradictory things at once.

Not exactly. My not knowing things is the evidence for my position. I have ample evidence that there are lots of things I don't know.

No, that’s the justification you give for being incapable of articulating a counter-position. The evidence for your unspoken position is that you can’t be convinced unless your demand of physical evidence for non-physical things is met.

Except that you're viewing everything as a dichotomy. It doesn't necessarily has to be x or y, maybe it's z, or some letter in an alphabet that hasn't been discovered, or invented yet. Saying that the alternative isn't possible is not evidence of your position. Perhaps there is another alternative that we have not yet considered, or could not consider. At one point in time the idea that we were on a planet, in a solar system, hurtling through the cosmos, among comets, meteors, stars, nebulas, and quasars was not even something we could comprehend, much less present as an alternative to the world ends behind those mountains. And yet, here we are.

I would say that is evidence of my position. In the future it may turn out that position is wrong but the known alternatives being impossible is a fairly decent reason to consider the opinion rational. For example thinking the world was flat and that the universe rotates around it at one point was a rational assumption based on the evidence. As new evidence showed later that wasn’t the case but that doesn’t mean that wasn’t a rational opinion at the time. You can’t limit your ability to form an opinion because you think that you need all the evidence to make one because we will never have all the evidence.

But you can't have an actual rational subjective discussion. Subjective discussion is based in the understanding that there is no rational basis for it, and that the views are specifically subjective.

But where do you get the idea that a rational basis is limited to positive empirical evidence? Or that if it doesn’t have physical evidence it is inherently subjective?

It is it rational if I say?:
everything we perceive is in motion
spirit isn’t perceptible
spirit isn’t in motion.

Or is your thinking rational?:
everything we perceive is in motion
spirit isn’t perceptible
spirit doesn’t exist.

Clearly, you don't understand my position. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm right. I am merely saying I don't know. I am not making a claim, or counter claim. I am simply saying I don't believe you. I have no obligation to believe your claim just because you've made it, or because you made your claim first, that would simply be arbitrary. You are still required to present fact and evidence. If you want to convince me that the universe had a beginning, then you have to show me evidence that it did indeed begin. I do not have to counter an evidenceless claim, but if I did, that argument would not require evidence either, I would merely have to say that I made my claim before you did, and you need to present evidence to show that I'm wrong.

I only have to point out that you have not presented a strong enough argument to persuade me to say "yes, you're right" for me to continue to say, "I don't believe you" and "I don't know."

Sorry, your position is old and common place. I know you don’t like to think of yourself as having a position and that is fine but your behavior has been around for a long time. It’s just something you picked up from watching/reading other atheists.

“Str. With those who make being to consist in ideas, there will be less difficulty, for they are civil people enough; but there will be very great difficulty, or rather an absolute impossibility, in getting an opinion out of those who drag everything down to matter.” Plato’s Sophist
​

Sound like anyone you know?

Without evidence, neither is reasonable.

How do you know this?

How they can not change becomes difficult to explain too.

They don't have bodies, how could they not be in flux?

What is fluctuating if they don’t have bodies?

Both sides? What

two sides do you think we're talking about here?

Idealism and materialism.

Everybody has a bias, myself included. Everybody bases their opinions on what they wish was right. Facts are demonstrated with evidence, not opinion. I at least recognize that my opinions are the result of bias, and so I don't use them. If people find this impolite, then I'm sorry, but I'm not going to treat opinion as fact, even my own, for the sake of politeness.

Nobody expects you to treat your opinion like fact but they expect you to be able to articulate an opinion that you admittedly have a biased toward iin order to have a rational conversation.

Do you understand the difference between subjective and objective?

I can’t say that I do but I did google some stuff earlier. I would still like to know what the fact is that empirical evidence is required to form a rational opinion.

Believing in something I don't understand means that I don't know what it is I believe because I'm not aware of what I'm accepting. Why is that better?

You already believe in one position because of your bias. Articulating your belief is how others can take a look at your position and conversate about it, so that you can develop it further.

Do you believe in the theory of unsubstantiated operant awareness?

Never heard of it. Google didn’t give me anything to look at.

I understand you're getting frustrated, but I'm not playing a game. The difference between us, is that I understand that I'm ignorant, and will always be ignorant. That's why I continue to say "I don't know." I don't use that as an excuse not to learn what I can, but I accept that I will never understand everything that I want to. I accept that I cannot treat my opinions as fact, and that I cannot make a claim without understanding it, and that requires explaining it with evidence. If I'm not prepared to make a claim, I cannot say I believe it.

You don’t have to worry about me getting frustrated. You do have to worry that you have picked up some bad behavior from watching the games other atheists play with theists. I know you would like to believe that you are just an unbiased temple waiting for the truth but in reality you playing a successful verbal game, where you are setting up your opponent to fail to reconfirm that your bias isn’t questionable.

If no physical evidence is possible then your answers cannot be rational, or without bias. Eventually, your explanation will have to come down to some form of physical evidence if you ever want to give an objective, and thus rational and unbiased explanation of God. Remember, every claim has to be substantiated somehow, and I will always ask "How do you know?"

What you don't seem to understand is, it's not irrational to ask for physical evidence for something which has been claimed to exist. It's irrational to claim that something exists without physical evidence in the first place.

It’s irrational to argue against a position unless you know what you are arguing against it means. It’s irrational to argue against a position because you are asking for evidence that isn’t possible. It’s dishonest to refuse to articulate the opinion you have a biased towards and act like you are doing the ethical thing.

 

[JGG]

Wrong. A relationship means that God relates to you and YOU CLAIMED THAT HE NEVER DID, NEVER ANSWERED PRAYERS, DID ACKNOWLEDGE ANY CONFIRMATION BY HIM, DIDN'T SHOW UP!

YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING -- YOUR CLAIM -- NOT MINE!

You believed in the idea, the concept temporarily. A seed was thrown in your soil and it never grew.


Absolutely.


The pride of accomplishing something good is not what I'm talking about. It is the pride that says you don't need God, lifting yourself up as someone who is self-sufficient and the director of your own reality. As if you can do anything without Him! Are you in control of your heartbeat and all the healing bodily functions? In control of the events, plans and direction as well? Pride stands in the way of a relationship and you have this pride ... all atheists do!


You are right, a shut door to your heart and ears that are closed won't receive anything. And you wonder why he hasn't shown up?
Yeah, I'm done.

There ya go Oi_Antz. Christianity. Just anger and hatred...

 

[JGG]

I‘m not sure what I’m supposed to take from that. Theology and religion are not inherently superstitious. I can assume by “superstitious” you mean beliefs that aren’t supported with physical proof but that means that all theoretical physicists are superstitious by your standards. I’m fine using the words how you like but you are using the word “superstitious” atypically.

Theoretical Physics is based on and derived from evidence. Theology, religion, and superstition defy evidence.

God's activity produces the result but I’m not sure why you are assuming the activity changed.

Activity requires change.

On our part, but why are you assuming on God’s part?

Movement requires change.

Take the time to consider it. All three are forms of change found in matter and what we are looking for is not-matter but the source of matter.

Okay. Then why bring it up?

I pointed out that it was in the process of change but the point is that the activity of the sun doesn’t change if this planet reacts to it radiation and produces life.

Actually, it essentially does. When the sun is shining on New York, it is not shining on Tokyo, and vice versa. That's change in the sun's activity.

It was the soul that was in discussion and what I was referring to as the self.

Okay, so what is the soul? How does it observe? What does it do once it observes?

They don’t know, they just assume that it is the reasonable position, because the alternative isn’t as reasonable. You either accept their reasoning as sound or see fallacies they are committing, then compare that to the alternative position.

Well, we can't say it's reasonable yet. What's the alternative, and why is it impossible?

We are part of a larger system. What is active within the system is active within us.

How do you know?

There is no other possibility unless you suggest we are somehow separate from the universe.

I am seperate from the rest of the universe. There's me, and then the rest of the universe. While I am in that universe, I can be identified within the universe.

Correct, we know nothing about non-matter but it has been discussed at length for thousands of years, and yes I chose the name that you would be familiar with. We know it’s non-matter because we are discussing there being something more than matter. Whether it exists or not you can argue, that it is not-matter is clear cut.

Energy is non-matter. Are you claiming that energy is spirit?

I think there is usually only a couple of options to each question so the choices are generally not that difficult. The number of questions may be cumbersome, or it could less than a dozen when you boil them all down.

The less evidence we have, the greater the options are.

 

[JGG]

The whole system may change because of God’s activity but why are we assuming that part of the system changes somehow?

Determining between probable and improbable may be tricky, but between possible and impossible shouldn’t be so tough, even when you include that any kind of temporal event is possible. Improbable things like aliens and luck may be a possible reality. But things that are truly impossible like someone being able to hold still on a moving planet or you jumping into a pool of water causing the planet to go nuclear are considered impossible because they would require things like breaking the known laws of nature or require doing two contradictory things at once.

Perhaps, the problem is, when dealing with the concepts we're dealing with, the laws of nature are useless as we're dealing with the supernatural. Nothing is impossible.

No, that’s the justification you give for being incapable of articulating a counter-position. The evidence for your unspoken position is that you can’t be convinced unless your demand of physical evidence for non-physical things is met.

Why don't you just tell me what my opinoin is? Clearly, that's what you're looking for.

I would say that is evidence of my position. In the future it may turn out that position is wrong but the known alternatives being impossible is a fairly decent reason to consider the opinion rational. For example thinking the world was flat and that the universe rotates around it at one point was a rational assumption based on the evidence. As new evidence showed later that wasn’t the case but that doesn’t mean that wasn’t a rational opinion at the time.

But they were wrong. They believed the Earth was flat because they couldn't imagine anything else. That's not rational, that's an argument from incredulity.

You can’t limit your ability to form an opinion because you think that you need all the evidence to make one because we will never have all the evidence.

So, you're saying, even if I have limited, or even no evidence of something, I should form and share an opinion about it?

But where do you get the idea that a rational basis is limited to positive empirical evidence? Or that if it doesn’t have physical evidence it is inherently subjective?

Because we have no basis to share subjective experiences. Without that basis it's simply your subjective experience versus mine. Neither of us can claim our subjective experiences as fact. Without facts our opinions cannot be rational. However, with objective evidence we have a basis to share experiences, we can identify facts, we can make rational claims.

It is it rational if I say?:

everything we perceive is in motion

How do you know that everything we perceive is in motion?

spirit isn’t perceptible

How do you know spirit isn't perceptible?

spirit isn’t in motion.

You'll have to reinforce your earlier premises to make that conclusion rational. However, even beyond that it isn't a logical conclusion. Just because everything we perceive is in motion doesn't logically dictate that everything we don't perceive isn't also in motion, or that some things we don't perceive are in motion and some aren't.

P1: Every Led Zeppelin Album is good.
P2: The Wall isn't a Led Zeppelin Album.
C1: The Wall isn't a good album.

Or is your thinking rational?:

everything we perceive is in motion
spirit isn’t perceptible
spirit doesn’t exist.

Neither is rational, or logically sound. However, more to the point, I never claimed that the spirit doesn't exist. I am merely not convinced that spirit exists.

Sorry, your position is old and common place. I know you don’t like to think of yourself as having a position and that is fine but your behavior has been around for a long time. It’s just something you picked up from watching/reading other atheists.

How do you know?

“Str. With those who make being to consist in ideas, there will be less difficulty, for they are civil people enough; but there will be very great difficulty, or rather an absolute impossibility, in getting an opinion out of those who drag everything down to matter.” Plato’s Sophist

Sound like anyone you know?

Well, let's ignore the fact that he's wrong. Scientists are people who drag everything down to matter. They have opinions about lots of things. I have lots of opinions about music, film, politics, literature, and sports.

What are you upset about? Plato told you what to expect.

However, when it comes to the supernatural, I am completely undecided. I have no facts, evidence, or information from which to base an opinion on.

How do you know this?

I looked up the definition of reason.

What is fluctuating if they don’t have bodies?

Presumably whatever "they" are.

Idealism and materialism.

And these are mutually exclusive, are they?

Nobody expects you to treat your opinion like fact but they expect you to be able to articulate an opinion that you admittedly have a biased toward iin order to have a rational conversation.

But that wouldn't be a rational conversation. It would be an irrational conversation because of the bias.

I can’t say that I do but I did google some stuff earlier. I would still like to know what the fact is that empirical evidence is required to form a rational opinion.

Again, because without empirical evidence we don't have a basis to share experience. Subjective experience is necessarily affected by bias.

You already believe in one position because of your bias. Articulating your belief is how others can take a look at your position and conversate about it, so that you can develop it further.

No, I can't say that I believe in my position, as I'm aware of my bias. "Developing" my opinion through more unsubstantiated claims isn't helpful, and certainly isn't rational.

Never heard of it. Google didn’t give me anything to look at.

I didn't ask what it was, I asked whether you accept the theory, or reject it. Why was your first instinct to Google it? To get information about it before you form an opinion?

You don’t have to worry about me getting frustrated. You do have to worry that you have picked up some bad behavior from watching the games other atheists play with theists. I know you would like to believe that you are just an unbiased temple waiting for the truth but in reality you playing a successful verbal game, where you are setting up your opponent to fail to reconfirm that your bias isn’t questionable.

I never said I was unbiased. In fact, I have specifically said several times now that I, like everyone else, am biased. This "game" I'm playing is the Socratic Method (you know Socrates, right?). Keep asking questions until you find truth. If your claims fail, then they're not true.

It’s irrational to argue against a position unless you know what you are arguing against it means.

No, I don't see how it would be unreasonable to argue against any position if there is a reason to question it.

It’s irrational to argue against a position because you are asking for evidence that isn’t possible.

That's true. I don't need to argue against something at all if evidence isn't possible. However, I don't have to accept it either.

It’s dishonest to refuse to articulate the opinion you have a biased towards and act like you are doing the ethical thing.

It's dishonest not to articulate an opinion? Even if you're reasonably sure that opinion is wrong?

Why is it so important to you that I have an opinion on this? Why is it impossible that I am simply undecided? What would you like me to have an opinion on specifically?

 

[ElijahW]

Theoretical Physics is based on and derived from evidence. Theology, religion, and superstition defy evidence.

A little litmus test. Is what Heisenberg speaking of here based on evidence or superstition?

“In the philosophy of Democritus the atoms are eternal and indestructible units of matter, they can never be transformed into each other. With regard to this question modern physics takes a definite stand against the materialism of Democritus and for Plato and the Pythagoreans. The elementary particles are certainly not eternal and indestructible units of matter, they can actually be transformed into each other. As a matter of fact, if two such particles, moving through space with a very high kinetic energy, collide, then many new elementary particles may be created from the available energy and the old particles may have disappeared in the collision. Such events have been frequently observed and offer the best proof that all particles are made of the same substance: energy. But the resemblance of the modern views to those of Plato and the Pythagoreans can be carried somewhat further. The elementary particles in Plato's Timaeus are finally not substance but mathematical forms. "All things are numbers" is a sentence attributed to Pythagoras. The only mathematical forms available at that time were such geometric forms as the regular solids or the triangles which form their surface. In modern quantum theory there can be no doubt that the elementary particles will finally also be mathematical forms but of a much more complicated nature. The Greek philosophers thought of static forms and found them in the regular solids. Modern science, however, has from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries started from the dynamic problem. The constant element in physics since Newton is not a configuration or a geometrical form, but a dynamic law. The equation of motion holds at all times, it is in this sense eternal, whereas the geometrical forms, like the orbits, are changing. Therefore, the mathematical forms that represent the elementary particles will be solutions of some eternal law of motion for matter. This is a problem which has not yet been solved.”
​

Activity requires change.

with matter but we aren’t talking about matter.

Movement requires change.

I’m not suggesting God is moving. Are you and if so why?

Okay. Then why bring it up?

Socratic method

Actually, it essentially does. When the sun is shining on New York, it is not shining on Tokyo, and vice versa. That's change in the sun's activity.

The sun’s activity doesn’t change when the earth is facing one way or when it’s facing the other, or if it’s on one side during summer and on another during the winter. The process continues within the sun regardless of who utilizes the energy it is putting off.

Okay, so what is the soul? How does it observe? What does it do once it observes?

No idea.

Well, we can't say it's reasonable yet. What's the alternative, and why is it impossible?

The universe is a vibrating ball of goo that is maintaining its behavior without any additional support.

How do you know?

How do I know what? That we are a part of a larger system or that the laws at work in the universe are at work within us?

I am seperate from the rest of the universe. There's me, and then the rest of the universe. While I am in that universe, I can be identified within the universe.

How are you separate from the universe? What is the barrier between you and the universe and what is the difference that goes on between the two sides?

Energy is non-matter. Are you claiming that energy is spirit?

No I’m not, are you? What do you think energy is, if it isn’t understood as matter?

The less evidence we have, the greater the options are.

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

 

[ElijahW]

Perhaps, the problem is, when dealing with the concepts we're dealing with, the laws of nature are useless as we're dealing with the supernatural. Nothing is impossible.

You and I are not discussing the supernatural, but if the “laws of nature” actually exist or if they are just an abstract representation of the behavior of matter, with no real existence.

Why don't you just tell me what my opinoin is? Clearly, that's what you're looking for.

If you are arguing against idealism then you are arguing for materialism.

But they were wrong. They believed the Earth was flat because they couldn't imagine anything else. That's not rational, that's an argument from incredulity.

No it’s an argument based on the empirical evidence they had at the time. The scientific understanding evolves as the information we have available grows. Just because someone believed in something that was proved incorrect doesn’t mean that they were superstitious or had fallacies in their reasoning. No more than in the future, when all the current scientific concepts are replaced with new ones, should our scientific community be viewed as committing fallacies.

So, you're saying, even if I have limited, or even no evidence of something, I should form and share an opinion about it?

I think if you have, not only an opinion, but a bias towards that opinion it is the honest thing to do.

Because we have no basis to share subjective experiences. Without that basis it's simply your subjective experience versus mine. Neither of us can claim our subjective experiences as fact. Without facts our opinions cannot be rational. However, with objective evidence we have a basis to share experiences, we can identify facts, we can make rational claims.

I’m not talking about subjective opinions but rational explanations where the reason can be examined. I think you are creating a false dichotomy between subjective opinion and empirical evidence.

How do you know that everything we perceive is in motion?

Matter and energy are all in motion and that is all we can perceive.

How do you know spirit isn't perceptible?

Nobody has produced any evidence of it being so.

You'll have to reinforce your earlier premises to make that conclusion rational. However, even beyond that it isn't a logical conclusion. Just because everything we perceive is in motion doesn't logically dictate that everything we don't perceive isn't also in motion, or that some things we don't perceive are in motion and some aren't.

I think adding the word “capable” will fix a lot of the problems with the first part. It’s true that things are in motion that we can’t detect but it is going to require some kind of atomic activity and structure to interact with matter, for us to be “capable” of detecting it.

P1: Every Led Zeppelin Album is good.

P2: The Wall isn't a Led Zeppelin Album.
C1: The Wall isn't a good album.

It would be more like
Every band that plays music uses musical instruments
A football team doesn’t play music
A football team doesn't use musical instruments

Neither is rational, or logically sound. However, more to the point, I never claimed that the spirit doesn't exist. I am merely not convinced that spirit exists.

What don’t you think is sound?

How do you know?

You are either the originator of the behavior or an imitator and since I don’t think you are thousands of years old, I will assume this is another case of monkey see, monkey do.

Well, let's ignore the fact that he's wrong. Scientists are people who drag everything down to matter. They have opinions about lots of things. I have lots of opinions about music, film, politics, literature, and sports.

What are you upset about? Plato told you what to expect.

I’m not upset about anything. You were under the impression that I was having difficulty with your position and i was pointing out that wasn’t the case because your position isn’t anything new.

However, when it comes to the supernatural, I am completely undecided. I have no facts, evidence, or information from which to base an opinion on.

And how are you defining the word “supernatural” here?

I looked up the definition of reason.

I don’t need definitions. I need you to meet your established criteria and provide empirical evidence that says that empirical evidence is needed in order to form an unbiased or rational opinion.

Presumably whatever "they" are.

So you have no reason to believe they are in motion or what kind of motion it would be. It’s just a baseless guess?

And these are mutually exclusive, are they?

An idealist can believe in matter but a materialist can’t believe in an ideal.

But that wouldn't be a rational conversation. It would be an irrational conversation because of the bias.

Just because you have a bias doesn’t mean you can’t articulate a rational reason for your position and identify fallacies in the other position. Why would you assume this?

Again, because without empirical evidence we don't have a basis to share experience. Subjective experience is necessarily affected by bias.

I don’t think we are using subjective experience as evidence here.

No, I can't say that I believe in my position, as I'm aware of my bias. "Developing" my opinion through more unsubstantiated claims isn't helpful, and certainly isn't rational.

Bias and belief are synonymous. What you are biased towards is what you believe in.

I didn't ask what it was, I asked whether you accept the theory, or reject it. Why was your first instinct to Google it? To get information about it before you form an opinion?

Once I knew what it is, I would know what my opinion is. I’m not going to form a new opinion, I’m just going to see what you are talking about.

I never said I was unbiased. In fact, I have specifically said several times now that I, like everyone else, am biased. This "game" I'm playing is the Socratic Method (you know Socrates, right?). Keep asking questions until you find truth. If your claims fail, then they're not true.

You aren’t asking questions that inspire critical thinking but demanding proof which critical thinking would tell you isn’t possible. When I ask you how God can change, that is the Socratic irony.

No, I don't see how it would be unreasonable to argue against any position if there is a reason to question it.

You have no ability to question it until you understand it.

That's true. I don't need to argue against something at all if evidence isn't possible. However, I don't have to accept it either.

True, but until you come up with another explanation, going around and playing the prove-it game is uncalled for. Take the time to figure out what you do accept.

It's dishonest not to articulate an opinion? Even if you're reasonably sure that opinion is wrong?

Why is it so important to you that I have an opinion on this? Why is it impossible that I am simply undecided? What would you like me to have an opinion on specifically?

Yes, if you have a bias against the other position and are going to be reluctant to accept the reasoning behind the position then it is necessary to present the counter position to be examined.

You aren’t undecided though, you have a bias towards one position already, you just know you can’t defend it, so have to act like you don’t have an opinion.

 

[oi_antz]

Wrong. A relationship means that God relates to you and YOU CLAIMED THAT HE NEVER DID, NEVER ANSWERED PRAYERS, DID ACKNOWLEDGE ANY CONFIRMATION BY HIM, DIDN'T SHOW UP!

YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING -- YOUR CLAIM -- NOT MINE!

You believed in the idea, the concept temporarily. A seed was thrown in your soil and it never grew.


Absolutely.


The pride of accomplishing something good is not what I'm talking about. It is the pride that says you don't need God, lifting yourself up as someone who is self-sufficient and the director of your own reality. As if you can do anything without Him! Are you in control of your heartbeat and all the healing bodily functions? In control of the events, plans and direction as well? Pride stands in the way of a relationship and you have this pride ... all atheists do!


You are right, a shut door to your heart and ears that are closed won't receive anything. And you wonder why he hasn't shown up?
Yeah, I'm done.

There ya go Oi_Antz. Christianity. Just anger and hatred...

Well I wouldn't say he is wrong in what he says, but you are right that this is not demonstrating patience. It's fair enough for him to wipe his shoes on the way out though, the only reason I have stuck around with you is because I love you brother, and I know Jesus does too There's something really important in what he's said to you: A seed was thrown in your soil and it never grew. You'd best get to the real reason why you refuse to let it grow, because by disarming that misconception you will see why an atheist might come to Christ.

 

[JGG]

A little litmus test. Is what Heisenberg speaking of here based on evidence or superstition?

I can't say for sure. I am tempted to say a great deal of superstition, however, he is dealing with the natural world. He might (and probably does) have evidence to back it up. However, I am not an expert by any means in physics.

with matter but we aren’t talking about matter.

Oh. What are we talking about, and how do we know what laws that follows?

I’m not suggesting God is moving. Are you and if so why?[/FONT]

But you were the one who claimed that he is moving:

We move in him and him in us so I don’t know in what way you want him to know us more. Yes you can’t see him and you can’t know him but you can understand why that is so.

Socratic method

But all three are still on the table, and now we're saying they don't matter anyway? We didn't get any closer to the truth.

The sun’s activity doesn’t change when the earth is facing one way or when it’s facing the other, or if it’s on one side during summer and on another during the winter. The process continues within the sun regardless of who utilizes the energy it is putting off.

The Sun still shines on Texas at night?

No idea.

Welcome to the dark side.

The universe is a vibrating ball of goo that is maintaining its behavior without any additional support.

Somehow I don't think that's the only possible alternative.

How do I know what? That we are a part of a larger system or that the laws at work in the universe are at work within us?

How are you separate from the universe? What is the barrier between you and the universe and what is the difference that goes on between the two sides?

No, what I'm saying is that I am distinguishable from the rest of the universe, which is made clear since we can identify me, just as we can identify you, or a building, or pencil. It's not necessarily that we are part of a soup-like universe, but maybe the universe is simply made up of us, and all of the things around us making their own contribution. Perhaps the universe itself is not a thing at all, but just the sum total of all the things in our reality. On the other hand, maybe it's everything, and we just perceive difference between objects, and energy that aren't really there. Maybe it's something else completely. I don't know.

No I’m not, are you? What do you think energy is, if it isn’t understood as matter?

I don't know what energy is, but I know it's stored and transfered, generally through matter. We can touch matter, but can only manipulate energy. We can't actually see energy, but the effect it has on matter. There's no reason to believe that they're not two different things. But that's not the point, what is non-matter?

Could you give me an example of what you mean?[/FONT][/COLOR]

From where you are you really have no idea how tall I am, as you have no evidence of my height. However, if you were to actually see me, you'd have some evidence of my height, and could probably narrow it down to a few inches. If you were to informally measure me, you could probably narrow it down even further with a margin of error. And with very sophisticated equipment, even get a very precise measurement with a smaller margin of error.

You and I are not discussing the supernatural, but if the “laws of nature” actually exist or if they are just an abstract representation of the behavior of matter, with no real existence.

I thought we were discussing a rational God, which would be necessarily supernatural.

If you are arguing against idealism then you are arguing for materialism.

How do you figure that's true?

No it’s an argument based on the empirical evidence they had at the time. The scientific understanding evolves as the information we have available grows. Just because someone believed in something that was proved incorrect doesn’t mean that they were superstitious or had fallacies in their reasoning. No more than in the future, when all the current scientific concepts are replaced with new ones, should our scientific community be viewed as committing fallacies.

That may be true. I'll consider it.

I think if you have, not only an opinion, but a bias towards that opinion it is the honest thing to do.

So, if I think my wife is looking fat, I should tell her?

I’m not talking about subjective opinions but rational explanations where the reason can be examined. I think you are creating a false dichotomy between subjective opinion and empirical evidence.

Well, subjective opinion and empirical evidence are not mutually exclusive. However, without evidence you clearly are left with nothing but a subjective opinion.

Matter and energy are all in motion and that is all we can perceive.

How do we know that that's all we can perceive. Maybe we can perceive other things, but have not had the opportunity to do so.

Nobody has produced any evidence of it being so.

Nobody has produced evidence of it at all. This is a claim that can't be made.

It would be more like

Every band that plays music uses musical instruments
A football team doesn’t play music
A football team doesn't use musical instruments

Well this is also a poor logic set.

Firstly, it takes for granted that a band that plays music uses musical instruments for that purpose.
Secondly, the logic set takes for granted that the football team, while not playing music, does not use musical instruments for any reason.
You assume that musical instruments can only be used for music, which is not dictated in your logic set.

This is similar to earlier when you assumed that anything which is not perceptible, is also not in motion. There was nothing in that logic set which dictated that premise, and yet it was necessary for the conclusion. This is not sound logic.

You are either the originator of the behavior or an imitator and since I don’t think you are thousands of years old, I will assume this is another case of monkey see, monkey do.

Assume whatever you like, but we see what that led to in those logic sets.

I’m not upset about anything. You were under the impression that I was having difficulty with your position and i was pointing out that wasn’t the case because your position isn’t anything new.

Then I should be easy to convince.

And how are you defining the word “supernatural” here?

Something that is not subject to, or defies natural law.

I don’t need definitions. I need you to meet your established criteria and provide empirical evidence that says that empirical evidence is needed in order to form an unbiased or rational opinion.

I think it's fair to say that we agree that this is not a purple triangle. We can agree to this because the experience is independent of our own minds, and exists in the same way for everyone. Evidence which only exists in our minds, cannot be shared as that experience is personal, and may differ from one person to the next.

So you have no reason to believe they are in motion or what kind of motion it would be. It’s just a baseless guess?

Actually, it's devil's advocate. You're the one making the claim afterall, and you claimed they were unchanging.

An idealist can believe in matter but a materialist can’t believe in an ideal.

That depends on your definition of idealist. A materialist can be a moral idealist, and a philosophical idealist is not a materialist.

Just because you have a bias doesn’t mean you can’t articulate a rational reason for your position and identify fallacies in the other position. Why would you assume this?

That's true in a subjective conversation, not an objective one.

I don’t think we are using subjective experience as evidence here.

What are we using as evidence then?

Bias and belief are synonymous. What you are biased towards is what you believe in.

Not necessarily. One can be drawn to think a certain way, but not believe it. Every person on Earth is biased to favour their own race, gender, religion, nationality, or whatever. Most people don't believe that their race, gender, religion, or nationality is superior to others.

Once I knew what it is, I would know what my opinion is. I’m not going to form a new opinion, I’m just going to see what you are talking about.

It's a psychological theory. So, what's your opinion? Do you accept it or reject it?

You aren’t asking questions that inspire critical thinking but demanding proof which critical thinking would tell you isn’t possible.

Yes, which is why critical thinking tells me your theories aren't verifiable, or reliable, which gives me every reason in the world to be skeptical.

When I ask you how God can change, that is the Socratic irony.

Not exactly, but the same would be true when I ask how God can be unchanging. We can't actually know that. For all we know these words may not even be applicable to "God." In fact, we don't really know which words could be applicable to "God." Which is why I continue to say "I don't know."

You have no ability to question it until you understand it.

I have no ability to understand it without asking questions.

True, but until you come up with another explanation, going around and playing the prove-it game is uncalled for. Take the time to figure out what you do accept.

No, I'm sorry, but that's exactly what I have to do. Just because you make a claim doesn't mean I have to accept it unless you can back it up with evidence. It doesn't matter if I have another explanation or not, you still have to back yours up with evidence. But, if you don't accept that, then my standard explanation will be "William Shatner did it."

Yes, if you have a bias against the other position and are going to be reluctant to accept the reasoning behind the position then it is necessary to present the counter position to be examined.

No, I don't. I merely have to explain why I don't think your explanation is adequate. There doesn't even have to be a counter-position.

You aren’t undecided though, you have a bias towards one position already, you just know you can’t defend it, so have to act like you don’t have an opinion.

Firstly, how do you know I'm not undecided? Secondly, if I have an opinion that I can't defend, but must be defended, why on Earth would I share it?

 

[JGG]

Well I wouldn't say he is wrong in what he says, but you are right that this is not demonstrating patience. It's fair enough for him to wipe his shoes on the way out though, the only reason I have stuck around with you is because I love you brother, and I know Jesus does too

Well you tell me OA, cause I'll trust you on this. Have I been abusive? Have I been unreasonably harsh? Am I calling people names, and mocking them? Have I been entirely disrespectful? Have I been getting angry and condemning them?

Or is it simply, that I don't believe what you think I should believe?

There's something really important in what he's said to you: A seed was thrown in your soil and it never grew. You'd best get to the real reason why you refuse to let it grow, because by disarming that misconception you will see why an atheist might come to Christ.

Well, why don't you tell me? That's what the thread is here for.

 

[poulgaragr]

Why do Christians worry about Hell since (supposedly) someone else died for their sins? lol