Darth Dane

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Darth Dane - your post compounded my conviction that you, Amos and Christian have much to sort out among yourselves.
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

What is it I need to sort out?

I am no more a christian than a buddhist, no more Muslim than an atheist.

I AM.

God IS.

The inviolable laws you are referring to, are filled with contradictions. Take math for example.

So many loopholes it could make the world spin...wait its doing that isn't it?

I am sure many of you know more about the inconsitencies in math and so on, than I do.

What about the bumblebee? according to physic it should be IMPOSSIBLE for the Bbee to fly, yet we all SEE that it does. Seeing is believing ????



"In my opinion that would be asking too much." - LOL


"ask and you shall be given"

If you don't ask, nothing will be given to you.... :^O


If you deem me to be in darkness, please enlighten me, and I AM being serious!!!!!, all that I seek is the light of reason and meaning and Love





DD - Love Spliff

Amos

Hello Spliff, I would never ask you to comply but at best would I ask if your vehicle gave you a smooth ride.

Darth Dane

"Hello Spliff, I would never ask you to comply but at best would I ask if your vehicle gave you a smooth ride."

hello I assume that you mean my vehicle to be my "belief system"?

If so, Yeah, life is so grand, I can say "before I was blind, now I can see"

If you take all systems and mix them, as in my other thread "thou art God", you'll get a meaning that makes sense across the board - sorry pun intended


I feel my God inside me, and when I open my eyes and look I see God's creation, created for me to experience

I am content




DD - Content Spliff

Amos

I hear you! No more sputtering and you are just humming right along. Good for you.

Christian

Rhea,

Nothing new comes into existence at the moment of conception???

Even if reincarnation were true, the creature would be a new one. Something being brought into existence still seems more difficult than something returning to existence.

Something new is still being brought into existence, though. A life is being created, which is a different thing than merely living matter. An organism is a significantly different thing than a sperm or an egg.

That's simply not true. The laws of nature are not voilated if something new is inserted into the system where those laws are still operating.

If I put 3 quarters into an empty kitchen drawer tonight, and I put 5 quarters into my kitchen drawer tomorrow night, then the laws of mathmatics dictate that I have 8 quarters in that drawer. If a theif breaks in and steals those quarters then I would actually have zero quarters in that drawer. But that doesn't mean that the laws of mathmatics have been violated! The established laws of mathmatics did not operate backwards ... something external to the system has added (or in this case taken away) from the things that exist inside the system.

In the same way, resurrection doesn't mean that the laws of physics are moving backwards. Instead God, who exists external to the system, has inserted something new into it (constructing a live person from a dead one). The laws of nature have nothing to do with it, any more than the laws of mathmatics have to do with the actions of a thief.

I'm not claiming that miracles add to the laws of nature (themselves). I'm saying that in miracles God add things and actions to the system that is still operating by the laws it always has.

Respectfully,

Christian

Stephen T-B

Nightwatchman: “come on you dont actually believe theres a real heaven and real hell do you now?”
No I don’t. I’m interested in the views of people who do.

We’ve come a long way in this thread from talking about the possibility of a soul having a heavenly time in heaven when it knows it’s loved ones are doomed to eternal torment.
The discussion demonstrates to me that if you believe in something to the extent that you “know” it to be true (for a fact,) then there are no difficulties so great that they cannot be smoothed away.
If Faith can move mountains, perhaps these are the “mountains” it can move? (It certainly can’t move real ones...)
In an earlier post I referred to the bottomless chasm which separates Christian from me: I tend now to think that we’re not even in the same universe.
In this context, I am curious about Christian’s credulity threshold. Does he believe, for instance, that the Holy Spirit has turned people’s lead-amalgam fillings into gold? Does he believe Roman Catholics routinely - and actually - see the Virgin Mary? Does he believe in Perpetual Motion or Alien Abduction? Where, in his universe, does the “believable” become the “unbelievable”?
Is there such a thing as “unbelievable”?
Santa Claus? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? Of course there is. But why not, in that case, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection?
The things we are able to believe in serve a purpose by supporting our hopes and justifying our prejudices and our behaviour - and performing other functions (I dare say) which I can’t now think of.
These “necessities for belief” vary from individual to individual, so what Mr Jones can believe in may be something which Miss Smith doesn’t even want to believe in. And if she doesn’t want to, then she won’t be able to.
But to what extent are her desires in this matter of her own making, and to what extent will they have been shaped by the interaction of her inherited traits and brain chemistry with her life’s experiences, over which she has no control?

To me, the whole God Thing is simply implausible - as implausible as the Holy Spirit turning people’s lead-amalgam fillings into gold, as Roman Catholics routinely - and actually - seeing the Virgin Mary, as Perpetual Motion or Alien Abduction.
If my credulity threshold is several inches - or miles - higher than Christian’s, is that something for which I deserve to be punished in hell for all of eternity, as though I were a Hitler?
Believing that it does means wanting to believe it does which means needing to believe it does, and I’m not sure that the “necessities” for this harsh, not to say cruel belief reflect especially well on those who embrace it.

Christian

Stephen,

I'm leary of ad hominum speculation in debate, but since you ask nicely and our conversation has been rational so far I'll engage.

Which is exactly why I wonder what basis can exist for ruling out supernatural causes before considering the evidence. In the "parable" of Lazarus God said "even if someone were to raise from the dead they would not believe." Isn't this in fact true of someone who has bought into the ideology of naturalism? If you were to watch an unmistakable death, for example a beheading. And walk up and verify by sight and touch that the person had in fact been beheaded. And then watched as the head jumped back onto the body, reattach, and the person stand up and walk around in an obviously alive state. And you spoke to them and verified thier vital signs. If all that happened, would you really admit that a supernatural event had occured or would you find a way to rationalize away what you had seen with your own eyes. For example believing it was just a halucination or a dream.

I've known too many highly intelligent and reasonably creative people to doubt the human ability to rationalize anything. I respectfully suggest that the problem is not a lack of evidence but rather the set of presuppositions you bring to the table which blinds you to those things you do not wish to see.

To answer your questions:

Why would He do that? I'm not familiar with such stories, and have not checked out the evidence for them. Off hand I would be skeptical, especially if it was a highly publicized thing. I would also carefully examine the what the result of this miracle was ... there are some fairly clearly established reasons for supernatural events if you examine scripture. I have no doubt that the Holy Spirit could do this if He chose to, but without knowing the details it sounds pretty friviolous to me.

I've at least heard of that one. If by "Roman Catholics" you mean the first century church I would most definitely agree that this occured. In this day and age I would be highly dubious. Why? To what purpose? With what result? How credible are the witnesses? etc.

I'm afriad I'm not familiar with what you are referring to here.

No. I've not made any detailed investigation but there is a lot of obvious fraud going on here and the witnesses I've seen touted lack credibility. If there are aliens watching us they are probably rolling their eyes at the stories being told.

Well, anything that seems logical and consistent with the evidence is believable to be. Anything illogical or inconsistent with the evidence is not believable. Further investigation or experience may either confirm or contradict my current conclusions about what is believable.

Yes.

I don't remember ever believing in Santa Claus. The Invisible Pink Unicorn sounds fun though. Where do I find out more about that?

If you want to believe that I have a low credulity threshold, go right ahead. Far be it from me to stand in the way of such a convenient idea. Knock yourself out!

Ummm ... maybe it's the evidence???

Like when Huxley stated that the reason he was a Darwinist was that it made sexual immorality premissable. Yep, I know what you mean. That phenomenon definitely exists.

Respectfully,

Christian

Stephen T-B

Hello Christian.
You said something in that thread about Free Will which I think nails things down remarkably well, and which I shall address there (but not today.) The discussion here, I suspect, will just slide around, but since your post deserves a considered reply, I’ll attempt to provide one.

You wondered if I’d admit there’d been a miracle, should I have seen someone’s head cut off, which then “jumped back onto the body, reattach, and the person stand up and walk around in an obviously alive state. And you spoke to them and verified their vital signs.”
Well, I might think it was an hallucination or a dream, but even if I didn’t, I’d be damn wary of pronouncing it to be a miracle because I’ve seen some absolutely amazing magical tricks performed which it would be reasonable to assume were indeed, magical. I’m reminded here of the Oxford University scientist who was persuaded by Uri Geller that his tricks were supernatural; the scientist conducted a lengthy investigation which culminated in a book in which he argued in favour of the “supernatural” hypothesis. But to his great chagrin - and I think the ruin of his reputation - he was forced at a later date to admit he had been taken in.
Our readiness to believe in the supernatural is, I think, very deeply embedded, but experience suggests that every apparent instance of it should be approached with the greatest caution. It has been said many times that extra-ordinary events require extra-ordinary proofs.

“ I respectfully suggest,” you wrote, “that the problem is not a lack of evidence but rather the set of presuppositions you bring to the table which blinds you to those things you do not wish to see.”
A fair accusation. But can it be countered by the suggestion that you might bring to the table presuppositions which encourage you to see things which you very much wish to see?

(This is what I meant about our discussion here “sliding around.”)

The stuff about fillings being turned into gold is a side issue: it was claimed as being the work of the Holy Spirit by the Charismatics who were involved in the Toronto Blessing, which, if you haven’t heard of, I’m sure you’ll be able to read about if you do a www search.

Your skepticism relating to present-day visions of the Virgin Mary tells me you are more rational than some of your co-religionists. But since the logic which makes you doubt the claims is consistent with your reasons for believing First Century visions to be true, it doesn’t amount to a serious breach of your gullibility. (That sounds rude and I’m sorry, but “gullibility” is the only word I can think of. )

I suppose I was embarked upon a futile quest in attempting to establish the boundary in your mind where the “believable” becomes the “unbelievable” Of course you believe what you consider to be reasonable to believe, and don’t believe what you consider to be unreasonable to believe. Just like me. So that doesn’t really tell us anything about our respective positions.

A good research project, I think, would be to study credulity thresholds, and how and why they differ from one person to another. I know you dislike my suggesting your threshold is lower than mine - but it is certainly very different or we would not now be having this discussion.

(Huxley’s statement that being a Darwinist permitted sexual immorality was crass. I am confident that Darwin was on the right tracks, I have been married 36 years and have remained faithful to my wife throughout. My sense of morality derives from my sense of responsibility towards other people, and the desire to treat them in a manner in which I would like them to treat me. To blame bad behaviour on Darwin is the same as blaming bad behaviour on god.)

HelenM

Here's a page about it, Christian:

Miracle Revival Ministries

Helen

lpetrich

Christian:
... In the "parable" of Lazarus God said "even if someone were to raise from the dead they would not believe." ...

Where?

And if I told you that I'm right now conversing with the deities of Mt. Olympus, would you then convert to Hellenic Paganism?

Stephen T-B:
Does he believe, for instance, that the Holy Spirit has turned people’s lead-amalgam fillings into gold?
Christian:
Why would He do that? I'm not familiar with such stories, and have not checked out the evidence for them. Off hand I would be skeptical, especially if it was a highly publicized thing. I would also carefully examine the what the result of this miracle was ...

Someone who moans and groans about skeptics then turns around and becomes one himself.

Does he believe Roman Catholics routinely - and actually - see the Virgin Mary?

I've at least heard of that one. ... In this day and age I would be highly dubious. Why? To what purpose? With what result? How credible are the witnesses? etc.

More skepticism.

or Alien Abduction?

No. I've not made any detailed investigation but there is a lot of obvious fraud going on here and the witnesses I've seen touted lack credibility. If there are aliens watching us they are probably rolling their eyes at the stories being told.

Still more skepticism.

But why not, in that case, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection?

Ummm ... maybe it's the evidence???

Whatever it allegedly is.

Like when Huxley stated that the reason he was a Darwinist was that it made sexual immorality premissable. ...

Where???

And which Huxley?

There were two noted evolutionary-biologist Huxleys: Thomas Henry Huxley and Julian Huxley. And THH had a very different reason. When he read about Darwin's concept of natural selection, he commented