outhouse

Your in no position to tell anyone about learning about the god concept, when you admit you dont know anything about the whole concept and state your ignorant about his mythical origins.

You also admit you have your own personal imaginative version of this deity concept no one else has.


Doesnt that mean your mind is closed and you no longer wish to learn about the god mythology?



why even debate then, if your education is self proclaimed finished?

TedM

We don't. We also don't know that it should apply to him. So, we can't say that he does or doesn't exist with certainty. That's why we are discussing the issue in the first place.


Not much.

I doubt that. They may have come close to making sense of a universe without the Christian God, but the idea that this universe started out so small that had we been present at the beginning we couldn't even have seen it if it laid in the palm of our hand is interesting but gets them no closer to explaining the beginning than they were when they thought God 'spoke' and 'made it so'.




Yes, that is my position. But it is due to the failure of science to explain how in a universe of cause and effect there could never have been an original first cause. I highly doubt they will ever be able to explain that. The default for now then is to believe in a First Cause that science cannot currently explain.

My position is no less scientific than that of the atheist. My position is scientific because it applies the principle of cause and effect to the existing universe. It is unscientific in that it identifies the cause as something that has intelligence. The atheist position is scientific in that it refuses to accept the idea of first intelligence without a cause. It is unscientific in that it believes there is a rational explanation for a forever-existing universe even though there is no evidence for one.


Take it up with spin then. He is the one who speculated about the attributes of a God, were he to exist. For purposes of his speculation he assumed a creator existed. Of course, he doesn't really believe in one.


No, I'm much more accepting of the observable universe. My belief in God is not as certain because it is untestable, but it is the best explanation I have. I"m not really sure that it impacts how I live my life though.


(P.S. Re 8:4, my last posting addressed the chronology of verses 1-6 as being linear, and I provided some support for that which was not discussed previously.)

TedM

To spin and outhouse, my speculation about the evolution from polytheistic to monotheistic being a myth, I'm sure it occurred in some cultures, but I was speaking generally, and it was motivated by the information I provided regarding creation stories--which according to the source talked about a Supreme Creator, and not a bunch of deities who created the world. Perhaps the creation stories also had evolved to be monotheistic. Dunno. Doesn't affect my claim that belief in a creator (or creators) is innate.

TedM

Why analyze something you believe to be untestable? And how exactly can that be done?

spin

Still blowing smoke, TedM.

spin

It's no problem to analyse notions that relate to entities that don't exist. Just think of vampires. It's within the realm of intellectual exercise. Your questioning entails you confusing the putting forward of notions to analyze with your belief in an untestable entity.

Incidentally, you didn't come back to me on this:

(Italics added.)

TedM

Hope is where hope resides. Perhaps when we die those secrets will become known. That's a lot sooner than science is likely to unlock the secrets.

Great questions though--long asked, never answered sufficiently. The only thing I can think of to add to my last response to you is that God, if he exists, need not conform to any law, if He is the originator of that law. That would include a law of Cause and Effect. The statement about the universe 'as a whole' not being subject to Cause and Effect is little more than a semantics trick to avoid saying the same thing -- ie the universe always existed. It doesn't get around the idea that the universe components seem subject to cause and effect and the universe 'as a whole' is the sum of its parts, so why shouldn't it 'as a whole' also be subject to the same law? The word 'universe' is just a word used to describe all of the pieces belonging to it--which ARE subject to cause and effect.

TedM

Sure, I could be deluded and wasting my breath.


Feel better now?

TedM

Ah, but how do you know? What if your postulated God really did create the universe which you are saying shows a concern for the aware creations, through their actions? How can you say there was 'no outside help' if God himself created it? He was the source of their ability! They just chose to use it. How could you conclude then that such a postulated God showed no concern for his aware creations if he gave them the ability to show their own concern and help themselves?




Intelligence enables one to do things (the causes) that have a desired effect. Just as man's intelligence enables him to put the cause into the desired affect, so can God. Just because God can use intelligence as a 'law' doesn't mean the law applies to God himself. Maybe he is the alpha and omega, negating your need for a 'pre-God'.


I wouldn't use the word 'totally'. Perhaps some of the principles are knowable, or reasonably perceived.

I don't see why applying one requires applying the other.

aa5874

Again, you present another contradiction. It is highly illogical to hold a position that is without reason and explanation. You are admitting that you don't know what you believe and don't know what you are talking about.

The default position MUST be Agnosticism.