Devilnaut

I guess science is wrong again.


PS

I'll respond to your latest post in a little bit mike... thanks for answering.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

ex-preacher

Glad to do it. Just as you probably feel a mission to tell folks about your version of God, so I feel the need to dispel such notions.

<strong> May I suggest that you seriously consider it? You have taken the time and trouble to come to this website. It would take only a little more time and trouble to explore some of the excellent articles in the II library. I think you would these article very challenging and well worth your energy.

<strong> You have failed to share the "considerable amount of evidence that God does exist." You seem to take as a given that God exists and that the Bible contains his message. I have yet to see any convincing evidence for either of these propositions. The things you do present are not evidence, but "logical meanderings" based on your givens. A moon rock is evidence. An idea is not.


<strong> Yes, it's truly odd, isn't it? I have known thousands of Christians, including hundreds with graduate degrees in Bible. Yet not a one of these understood the "true meaning" that you have discovered. Really odd.


<strong> You keep using the word literally. I don't think that word means what you think it means.


<strong> But a non-check for atheists. How are we supposed to get to where you are? I would also suggest that believing in God takes a lot more than just having the idea that God might exist.

<strong> This doesn't make sense to me. All beliefs should be shakeable. I don't see why a "correct view of his nature" equals unshakeableness. Please connect the dots for me.

<strong> Just to prove you wrong, I refuse to mock your argument. Oh goody, you're now going to give us some solid evidence!

<strong> I'm sorry, but quotes from the Bible do not prove anything, except that one can use quotes from the Bible to prove just about anything.

<strong> Only the writer of Luke's gospel asserts this. Why only Luke? Is it possible that he was mistaken? Or perhaps you are using this one phrase to translate into something that was utterly foreign to Luke.

<strong> Mainstream Xty does not deny that humans are the sons and daughters of God. Please show me proof that any Christian denies this.

<strong> Hang on - so Adam wasn't begotten in the flesh?

<strong> Not so. Genesis nowhere says that Adam would be immortal. Some scholars think the meaning was that he would continue to live only as long as he ate from the tree of life. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree. Of course, he didn't die that day. But that's only a problem if you take the Bible literally.

The Old Testament simply does not contain the idea of immortality or life after death.

<strong> As I said before, I think most mainstream Xns do take this literally.


<strong> Wow, quite a leap there, doncha think? Yes, the notion that God is first - the first cause - certainly resonates with most Christians. The idea that he is "simply the first and best of our race" is utterly foreign to Scripture. You must ignore hundreds of scriptures to get to this point.

The idea that God is the best of our race is laughable. He is depicted in the Bible as vengeful, jealous, and cruel. Gandhi was 1,000 times better than the God who murdered by drowning all humanity (including babies) and animals, save a few. This is the god who supposedly killed every first born of Egypt just prove what a tough god he was. He's a jerk. Plus he can't even inspire a Bible that his followers can all understand and follow. This makes either incompetent or evil. Take your pick.

<strong> "Inherit the business"? Please give me some literal references here.

<strong> A loving father might.

<strong> I would dispute this assumption that humanists deify man.

<strong> No, I think humanists recognize the debt owed to our ancestors, human and otherwise.

<strong> same to you

<strong> You just don't get it, do you? Atheists do not dislike God any more than you dislike Santa Claus. Your dislike of Santa doesn't make him cease to exist. Please provide us with some empirical evidence or clear rationality.

Keith Russell

Mike said:
"Keith,
That God is first and best implies one of two things. The first was suggested by your post: That God is not all that he is cracked up to be. The second possibility is that humans are more than we think they are. ie: Humans are potentially infinite.

Mike, I accept it as axiomatic that all things are finite. Energy exists outside of time, and is thus eternal, but it exists in finite quantity, and with specific, measurable characteristics. It is thus finite, but eternal. Nothing has infinite potential. A is A, and nothing has more potential than its nature allows.

Mike continues:
"Humans are potentially perfectly loving (meaning being as loving as possible), Humans are potentially omnipotent (meaning having all power that it is possible to have)--

No, Mike. 'Omnipotent' means 'having all power'. The 'omni' adjectives are inherently contradictory. This is one of the ways we can know that a God possessing these characteristics cannot (not only does not) exist.

Mike:
"Humans are potentially omniscient (meaning having all the knowledge that exists)--

Again, Mike, that is not what 'omniscient' means.

Mike:
--and humans are potentially omnipresent (meaning having an influence that extends infinitely--like the light of the sun).

The light of the sun is finite. The sun had a beginning, and it will have an end. The sun is of a specific size, and emits a measurable amount of energy each day. There are brighter, hotter, and larger stars than our sun. If the sun's energy was truly infinite, there could be no stars with greater quantities of energy, size, or heat.

Mike:
But humans can only realize this potential by acknowledging their true heritage. If we don't we are nothing more than carbon, water, etc. etc. And any attempts at excellence or progress are ultimately meaningless and literally will become dust in the wind. So if we are not the offspring of God, why try?

Mike, we are what we are. If we are not the offspring of God, we are still human, still alive, still possessed of reason, the ability to know, imagination, and the same emotions that we have.

I don't view myself as the offspring of any God, nor would I worship--period, even if something was discovered which seemed to be 'God'. So, whatever I do, I do it--not as a minion or creation of God--but as an individual human being trying to be the best he can be, whatever that is.

You see, Mike, while you may believe that God has a need for you, I have no need for God.

Keith.

Mike

quote:

"You have failed to share 'the considerable amount of evidence that God does exist.'"

As I said, my evidence stems only from my personal experience and will not be relevant to you. I only was explaining why I had not seriously considered the idea that God exists. It's absurd to question the existance of something you have experienced.

quote:

"Yes, it's truly odd, isn't it? I have known thousands of Christians, including hundreds with graduate degrees in Bible. Yet not a one of these understood the 'true meaning' that you have discovered. Really odd."

Yes, it is odd, but the authors of the New Testament claimed it was the same in the time of Christ. Fishermen got it, religious scholars did not.

quote:

"You keep using the word literally. I don't think that word means what you think it means."

That God is literally our Father means not only in spirit, but we share his DNA. How's that for literal?

quote:

"But a non-check for atheists. How are we supposed to get to where you are? I would also suggest that believing in God takes a lot more than just having the idea that God might exist."

Several in here, including yourself, claimed to have started from the premise that God existed. But you are right, it is only a beginning--not nearly enough.

quote:

"This doesn't make sense to me. All beliefs should be shakeable. I don't see why a 'correct view of his nature' equals unshakeableness. Please connect the dots for me."

The idea that all beliefs should be shakeable is one reason why so few have had authentic experiences with God.

quote:

"I'm sorry, but quotes from the Bible do not prove anything, except that one can use quotes from the Bible to prove just about anything."

I wasn't trying to prove that God exists from the bible, only that the Bible supports a specific conception of God, largely missed by mainstream Christianity.

quote:

"Only the writer of Luke's gospel asserts this. Why only Luke? Is it possible that he was mistaken? Or perhaps you are using this one phrase to translate into something that was utterly foreign to Luke."

I said that the bible states that Adam was the son of God. Hmmm. Maybe I should have quoted from a book that was included in the bible. Oh! Luke IS in the Bible. But you minimized this statement. Exactly my point, ex-preacher, perhaps other preachers have minimized it as well. Maybe that's why they missed the boat back at the counsel of Nice.

quote:

"Mainstream Xty does not deny that humans are the sons and daughters of God. Please show me proof that any Christian denies this."

They say that we are sons and daughters of God, but do not take it literally (physically) only spiritually. How many Christians do you know who actually believe we can grow up to be exactly like our Parent--to become gods?

quote:

"Hang on - so Adam wasn't begotten in the flesh?"

His body was flesh, but not yet subject to deterioration--not mortal flesh.

quote:

"Not so. Genesis nowhere says that Adam would be immortal. Some scholars think the meaning was that he would continue to live only as long as he ate from the tree of life. God said he would die the day he ate from the tree. Of course, he didn't die that day. But that's only a problem if you take the Bible literally."

OK so God said that eating the fruit would bring on death, which could be as much as implying that it would bring on mortality. Adam died two deaths. 1. Spiritual death: he was removed from the presence of God. 2. God said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree and from where God is sitting, he did. "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" -2 Peter 3:8 Adam lived 930 years according to Genesis. My those biblical authors were consistent, they even predicted the law of relativity.

quote:

"The Old Testament simply does not contain the idea of immortality or life after death."

You're getting rusty ex-preacher: "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." -Job 19:26 And: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. -Jeremiah 1:5 The Old Testament contains both the idea of pre-mortal existence and of life after death. This strengthens the idea that we are infinite beings, just like our Father.

quote:

"As I said before, I think most mainstream Xns do take this literally."

You were speaking about my references that "ye are gods" and "heirs of God" and the commandment to become perfect. Name the mainstream Christian organization that teaches that we may become gods.

quote:

"Wow, quite a leap there, doncha think? Yes, the notion that God is first - the first cause - certainly resonates with most Christians. The idea that he is 'simply the first and best of our race' is utterly foreign to Scripture. You must ignore hundreds of scriptures to get to this point."

Name a few that I have ignored. I have already given you several that confirm what I say. "if children, then heirs." Children don't come before parents, that makes God first. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." Do you know any humans that are perfect, much less better that perfect? Thus the bible is asserting here that God is the best. The previous quote already establishes that he is of our race (children and heirs belong to the same race as parents).

quote:

"The idea that God is the best of our race is laughable. He is depicted in the Bible as vengeful, jealous, and cruel. Gandhi was 1,000 times better than the God who murdered by drowning all humanity (including babies) and animals, save a few. This is the god who supposedly killed every first born of Egypt just prove what a tough god he was. He's a jerk. Plus he can't even inspire a Bible that his followers can all understand and follow. This makes either incompetent or evil. Take your pick."

Whether or not God conforms to your view of "good" doesn't have any bearing on the likelihood of his existence, nor on the fact that the bible claims he is perfect. Apocryphal sources claim that God was weeping in sorrow and holding back the waters of the flood until the people were too close to destroying themselves. Then he mercifully (even modern, enlightened minds appreciate that euthenasia may be motivated by love - but only an all knowing God can really know when someone is beyond mortal help) allowed the flood in order to keep the people from making things worse for themselves, then he died on a cross to satisfy the demands of justice for those people and then went and preached to the same people in spirit to give them another chance at happiness: 1 Peter 3:18-20: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering (patience)of God waited in the days of Noah..." Sounds like a good person to me. Ghandi was shot by someone who didn't want to stop killing as Ghandi taught. Christ was hung on the cross to save those who were bringing a fate worse then death upon themselves and their children. In addition, he mercifully stopped them from destroying themselves when they had gone to far. But the book of Enoch suggests that he didn't like doing it any more than you like putting your dog to sleep when it has gone and got itself hit by a car and is dying a slow death.

quote:

"'Inherit the business'? Please give me some literal references here."

I already did: "if children then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." Romans 8:17

quote:

"A loving father might [allow a son who doesn't claim him to inherit what he has]."

When you're talking about godhood as the inheritance, it's a little absurd to think that someone who doesn't believe in God would be allowed the privilege of being one. He'll likely make a mess of things if he hasn't learned to play by the rules.

quote:

"I would dispute this assumption that humanists deify man."

Maybe not, but many of them deny the existence of anything higher than man--or in other words a supreme being. Thus leaving man as the most supreme being--which would make him god.

quote:

"No, I think humanists recognize the debt owed to our ancestors, human and otherwise."

Maybe, but many humanists deny the very God who is our true common anscestor, however he got the DNA here originally. Whether the first mortal on this planet was molded from clay or born from a womb it doesn't matter, we are in the image of God. Many humanists call him all sorts of funny names, like primate etc., and do forget that not only our first breath, but every subsequent breath was granted by him. They also deny that he is/was far more advanced than any of us amateurs. Fine supreme beings they will make when they undermine their own foundation.

quote:

"You just don't get it, do you? Atheists do not dislike God any more than you dislike Santa Claus. Your dislike of Santa doesn't make him cease to exist. Please provide us with some empirical evidence or clear rationality."

You just told me how mean and nasty God was in a previous paragraph. If that's not dislike, I don't know what is. As for your empirical evidence, it's there for the asking, but it will take all that you've got to complete this experiment. Just like the woman at the treasury who cast in all that she had, the rich young ruler, Peter, Abraham, Job and the rest, it will cost you all that you have and are. Not some, not most, ALL. You can't become a god by worshipping money, scholarship, popularity or anything else--by puting anything before God. A painter cannot become a master by worshipping (emulating) the painting, only by worshipping (emulating) the master. You have to take your eyes completely off the canvas and watch the master...come on man, you know this stuff.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mike ]</p>

Mike

Keith,

When I said infinite, I meant infinite in duration. Matter and energy may be finite in quantity, but they are infinite in duration. We are beings of matter and energy. Thus, indisputably infinite in duration.

You said omnipotent means having all power. I guess the key word is "all." A power that is not possible is not a power at all--it cannot exist as a power if it is impossible--and therefore the statements "all power" and "all possible power" are synonymous.

Same with all knowing, and all present. A presence that is not possible is not a presence at all, and therefore "all present" and "all possible presence" are synonymous.

The sun may be of finite duration in its form as the sun, but the energy of the sun is of infinite duration as energy cannot be destroyed. The light of the sun will continue its course across the universe long after the sun itself has "burnt out." We currently are observing the stars as they were billions of years ago. Both the energy, and the light of the sun could conceivably continue to travel for an infinite duration throughout the universe whether the sun remains in its current state or not.

Come on man, you know this stuff too.

Thomas Metcalf

Cosym:
---First, existence is not a determining predicate.---

Which is why this arguement doesn't treat it as one. Unlike the conventional modal arguement, "greatest existence" has an operational definition.

Tom:
But "greatest existence" has within it the predication of a certain kind of existence; I might as well say that "greatest existence" cannot include statements of de re modal status.

Cosym:
---Therefore, "G = []G" (or 1; I'm not sure why you stated "G = []G" at the beginning) is false.---

Uh... why? G=[]G is a definition, taken directly from the idea of a supreme being. Would not a necessary being of intrinsic maximal characteristics, if it existed, rightly be called god?

Tom:
The definition is false because nothing can be defined to have some de re modal status. That's what I stated earlier. You're right that "If necessary plus intrinsic maximal characteristics, then God," but let's not commit the Converting a Conditional fallacy.

Cosym:
---"If a necessary being exists, then this necessary being exists necessarily," as it is to make sense of "It is possible that a necessary being exists." These are encapsulated in your "&lt;&gt;G" and your 1.---

Neither of these concepts are in the proof, but you seem to be substituting, for instance G[] for the G in &lt;&gt;G. There's nothing to justify that: &lt;&gt;G is not just G with a trivial modifier, it's a complete statement.

Tom:
Not exactly. Does it make sense to say a necessary being possibly exists? For that's what you say if you say God exists. You also say that a necessary being necessarily exists if you say "[]G", which seems rather unnecessary.

Cosym:
---Kant's second criticism seems more damaging. ---

I'm not sure I see how. Kant's criticism wouldn't seem to have much relevance to modal logic, in which it is perfectly meaningful to speak of necessary existence.

Tom:
That's not the issue; necessary existence makes sense, but necessary beings possibly existing or necessarily existing does not.

Cosym:
---Think of Plantingan "nunicorns" as parallel to his "eunicorns."---

Just a note: Plantinga helped forumlate this new arguement.

Tom:
Then I hope he allowed for this objection. Suppose I define Charlie as "a necessarily existing unicorn" or "nunicorn." We may immediately conclude that nunicorns exist.

Cosym:
---Finally, a parody, this one inviolate, I think. Replace "G" in your above argument with G': "The Necessary God-Destroying Device."---

Unfortunately, you can't just switch out for any term you please so easily. That is the virtue of the role of the definition.

Tom:
Which definition? Everything you offered above works. Of course, you might define God as a maximally existing being and derive necessary existence from that, but that doesn't by any means indicate that only a maximally existing being can necessarily exist -- just that only a necessarily existing being can be a maximally existing being. So why doesn't G' work? Please show me where the substitution argument missteps.

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

I apologize for not responding earlier to the thread I started. I see it has devolved to the usual proof of God concept. The original intent of the thread was to underscore there is little evidence for naturalistic explanations at least as far as big ticket items are concerned. At best this provides the possibility that a sentient creator is a possible solution to some of the irretractable problems of our origins and existence. The bottom line is if naturalists, materialists and atheists are really interested in divesting the rest of the world in their belief in God they are going to have to skinny up with evidence that non-god explanations are as good or better. When asked to defend their claims as they so often ask theists to do they seem to have less to offer than the theist do. Many of the respondents humorously invoked naturalism of the gaps as well as offering assertions as evidence. Things any theist would be flamed for offering as evidence of God. My conclusion is that naturalism as promoted by the Sec Web is a wishful belief statement and nothing more. It is surprising how few members of this board are willing to support or defend the home page mission statement. It seems clear to me the founding fathers of the Sec Web intended to defend and promote their worldview. Yet so many respondents naively state it is theists who are making a claim. Of course theists do make claims on their boards and websites and as expected defend such. On this board the home crowd expects visitors to defend their point of view while they attack.

A few comments, clearly some of the respondents ignored my entire text and launched into their favorite criticisms of theism. Apparently some are convinced that a mere objection to theism is evidence in favor of naturalism. This thread is not some sort of trick question. If there was compelling evidence of naturalistic explanations for the questions I asked I would have been inundated with answers. Actually was such information available in abundance I wouldn’t be asking the question because the answers would be obvious and I would be aware of them. This thread is targeted towards those who seem to think the answer naturalism is so obviously factual. This thread underscores the reality that things usually attributed to God by theists are attributed to nature by naturalists not because there is evidence nature did do them or for that matter could do them. Some responses indicated a preference for naturalistic explanations regardless of evidence.

A naturalistic approach is the only one that offers a real explanation. Naturalistic explanantions can be tested, evaluated, shown to be correct or otherwise. They're useful.

So naturalistic explanations should be advanced whether they find the truth or not?

Attributing something to God isn't any better than no explanantion at all. It doesn't take you forward. It can't be tested or evaluated. It's not a useful explanantion in any way. It adds nothing to our knowledge.

Not so. Knowing whether something is designed is very useful.

Why do we need "evidence of naturalism" when everything we see in the world around us has natural explanations? We know why we don't fly off into space (gravity), we know where light comes from (the sun), we know where each of us came from (our parents gave birth to us). We keep finding natural answers to our questions about the natural world. In the absence of evidence of the supernatural, supernatural explanations are simply unnecessary. And I'm always curious why people seem to think they are not.

We don’t need evidence that we live in a natural material world. That is self-evident. My questions revolve around the origins of the natural world we live in. I can find plenty of assertions and assumptions that natural forces are responsible but I am asking for evidence. After all I am told continually from atheists they reject the notion of theism due to lack of evidence. I don’t see lack of evidence being an issue in the case of belief in naturalism.

No, and this is the crucial difference between you and me. I don't need or want to backfill ignorance. I prefer my ignorance naked and unadorned, otherwise it does not bother me that I am missing something, and I am less inclined to consider the problem.

I’m happy you feel this way. Whoever created or subscribes to the mission statement on the home page of the Sec Web clearly isn’t willing to profess ignorance. Otherwise the mission statement we be more like this. We reject the idea of theism while freely admitting we are clueless as to the cause and origin of the universe as well as many other aspects of reality.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>

ex-preacher

Same thing with Santa - focus on the master, not the presents under the tree.

Yes, I know this stuff. Part of me is tempted to respond to each of your points in great detail. Another part of me recognizes the utter futility of such a response.

Bring us evidence of the existence of god(s).

Are you Mormon by any chance?

seanie

No. The naturalistic approach should be advanced because that's the only route by which you can evaluate whether you're getting at the truth. If a naturalistic explanation is shown to be incorrect you look for another naturalsitc explanation. These explanations can be evaluated and judged. You can evaluate how true such explanations are.

Not necessarily. But the real point is you can't evaluate the claim 'Goddidit'. You have no way of telling whether that's even remotely true. As an explanation the problem with 'goddidit' isn't so much that it's wrong more that it's pointless.

Mike

And if one did focus on the master and not the presents under the tree, one would soon find that what he thought was Santa, was in fact his FATHER.
The point is SOMEONE left the presents, they didn't just grow there. The naturalists have a Santa too and its called a "singularity." Which by the way sounds very much like some conceptions of God: Holding near infinite matter in a near infinitely small space until POW! there's the universe. While many Christians say that God fills the universe, but is small enough to dwell in your heart. Both Christians and Naturalists believe in Santa they just call him by different names, well I'm just saying that his real name is "Father."

Yes, you're probably right. This whole website and others like it are probably exercises in futility.

If I brought you a moon rock, you would say it was from Arizona. That WOULD be futile. To know for sure that it was from the moon you'd have to go there yourself.

I knew a REAL ex-preacher would figure it out. It's called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and oddly is often considered non-christian by much of the rest of Christianity, although it bore the name of Christ before any modern church. Yes. Before the Church of Christ was called the Church of Christ, my church was founded. Back then there were mainly Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherins, Methodists, etc. No one even yet claimed in their title to be Christ's church, although they claimed to follow him (and many, I believe, were and are doing their best).

It's been nice corresponding with you, ex-preacher. If you really want to find God, let me know.