Wyz_sub10

The problem with this, Tercel, is that it implies that theology can only truly be understood by a few people, or the elite.

I had a full discussion on this with luvluv who made basically the same comment - educated theologians have the "real" understanding of Christianity.

To me, this suggests that god' word is not really accessible to the common man. Rather, real understand can only be reached by those with the necessary biological capacity. Everyone else needs to adopt a "trust me" atitude.

While this is true of quantum mechanics, it is not important that the common man understand quantum mechanics.

It would seem to me that a personal realtionship with the J/C god would be based on understanding. This elitist position betrays, IMO, the very message of the Christian god.

TheUnbeliever

My bad on the typo... "assuaged" rather than "ass-waged."

To be fair, it was SAB's typo, not mine, but I should have proofed it first.

I'll look at Tercel's links shortly.

Jobar

Tercel:
God is infinite insofar as he is unbounded and uncontrained. Consider: If God is the ultimate entity, the thing that was before anything else existed - then he must be unconstrained by anything external to himself and he must be unlimited and without bound since nothing exists to bound him. We call that "infinite".

I see it's time to whip out my favorite .gif. Unbeliever, you'll like this one!





Tercel, Wyz has stated some of my own objections to your elitist view. Another problem is that I *do* understand quantum mechanics, at least in broad outline; why do you think it is that the more I learn about Christian apologetics, and theism in general, the less believable I find it? The muddle of fundamentalist theology is, indeed, too much for any but the very gullible to swallow; but even the most intellectual attempts to explain the nature of God seem clumsy and silly and needlessly complex to me. And since I am the senior moderator on this forum, I think I may have seen all known arguments for God's existence.

Tercel

How terrible...
How bad of God not to magically make himself into a 5 year old's conception of him...

Everyone can have a reasonable idea of what God is. A very low percentage of people are actually interested in advanced theology. The problem only comes when a person that is is being taught by people that aren't.

Neither is it important that your average Joe knows his logical proofs for the existence of God or knows ten different theologians understanding of the meaning of "omniscence" or knows the difference between Origen and Augustine. Most of the time Joe only wants to know that God exists, have a vague idea of what that means, and know what practical effects that has on how he should live his life.

What I object to is intelligent people who are interested in these things and who reject God based on a Joe-level understanding of God.

Tercel

Unless you've come up with the magical answers as to why the universe exists in the first place and how on earth I'm supposed to swallow such an arbitrary entity as the ultimate existent, then Occam's razor is firmly on my side and is going to shave your universe off.

Hmm since in my opinion you believe in God, that's rather a non-statement. The last time I got into an argument here on the subject, you seemed to be in agreement with me that God existed. The only difference is you seem to want to wander off into pantheism rather than going with monotheism.

SimplyAtheistic

*Sigh* Let me explain this to you one more time. Please give me your full attention. The first thing to be in existence would have no purpose. It just exists, and though it might develop one, it was not created with a purpose. Ok, so now the universe existing without god is a very real possibility. Next we look to evidence that supports either one. In one corner weighing in at about 3 punds (depends on the model), you have a book written by men, with many proven fallacies. In the other corner you have countless theories, but one is shown to be the most plausible. That is the big bang theory. It has evidence, plausibility, and most of all everything about it has been developed through observations. Soemone didn't say, "gee, I think our universe was created by a big bang, lets look for evidence". Instead they looked at the evidence and then developed a hypothesis. This method is how it should be done, not hypothesis without evidence, and then a mad dash to give some credence to this ludicrous hypothesis. Sorry Tercel, but to be a christian you must be blind to facts, and that I cannot do.
Jake

Tercel

I really am quite amused you think I am somehow not understanding your arguments, given I have been debating this subject for several years. I understand, but your arguments where valid are irrelevant.

Obviously, since the first thing in existence wasn't created, it wasn't created with a purpose. That doesn't mean it had no purpose: The first thing could be the very essence of purpose, in which case it would have purpose.

Er no, you're confusing the concepts of "created with a purpose" and "there is a logical explanation for its existence". The former doesn't apply to the first thing, the latter should. Unfortunately for you, your universe just doesn't make the bar there: It's a non-starter on the explanation front.

Don't be silly. The Bible is not proof of God, nor relevant to this discussion.

Incidently wer you aware that most of the proponents of the BB theory were theists who believed God created the universe? Their atheistic opponents tended to support steady-state models in which the universe always existed. (A belief congenial to atheism as you are demonstrating by trying to argue it)

Actually they did. They developed they hypothesis and found that it predicted background radiation. They went out and checked for that radiation and sure enough it was there in the level predicted.

:banghead:

Wyz_sub10

Are you implying that anyone who is not of elite intelligence has a five-year old's perception of the world?

That sounds like an diplomatic response - "it isn't that Sunday school teachers aren't smart enough, it is that they aren't really interested enough to learn the real truth."

That's my interpretation although I'll concede that you may not be actually saying this. If not, please elaborate on what you mean.

No, but it is important to understand what you are being told. If you are being told god is good and loving, you should be able to understand how this is so. If you are told god knows all, you shouldn't be told "well, you don't really need to understand" when faced with questions.

Are you Joe? I'm guessing this isn't enough for you. Why should it be enough for Joe? We have a few "Joes" on the board I'm guessing. Maybe they should pitch in.

Are you suggesting that intelligent people should know better than to use 'Joe level' arguments in theological discussion?

Perhaps. But perhaps it is because 1) non-Joe level arguments are not necessarily better; 2) some people may expect god to be away of all the 'joes' and be able to meet their inquiries.

I don't think Jesus preached different messages to the elites. He had some different messages for the priests than the masses, to be sure. But where do you find teachers that different in meaning and detail netween the audiences?

SimplyAtheistic

Ok, first things first. Yes, the first thing existing wasn't created with a purpose since it wasn't created, so a purpose is something it developed on its own. Though your argument that is must have a logical explanation is laughable at best. The first thing in existence need not have a logical explanation, I still don't see where you think it does. Yep, so if the bible isn't proof of god, then we have no evidence that god ever contacted us, and therefore we have no reason to pay homage to a god, and therefore we can live as if there is no god. Thanks. (This is excluding other religions that have their own books that are equally ridiculous) Now, who cares if the ones who developed the hypothesis were theists? The strength lies in the content, not the person who developed it. Nice try though. And lastly, you must be quite ignorant of the facts if you think the big bang was predicted before observation. Men viewed the dialation effect of the galaxies and determined they were all moving out at a very quick pace. THEN they formulated a hypothesis and checked for radiation levels. They did it the right way, unlike your method of science.
Jake

Tercel

And so we quickly arrive back to the situation where the atheist denies logic. Go figure...