theophilus

No, the issue here is about foundations for belief. The foundation for my belief is the bible a three dimensional object which can be handled, read and comprehended.
You said you could "just as easily" say that your cat created the universe. I asked for the foundation for such a statement.
To judge the "authority" of the Bible, you must first demonstrate that you have a superion standard by which to judge it.

Theli

Do you have anything to back this up? Your claim here requires that god exists, so you must first (in any way) prove gods existence before your claim can hold any value.

What creation? Please explain...
And you must also prove that the knowledge you say atheists supress is in fact true knowledge. And not wishes/ideas/lies.

"Bondage of sin"? I thought belief in god and by following his rules was to be controlled.

Theli

What the hell are you talking about? You don't need any superior standard to judge it. All a person needs to claim that the bible is false is reason. You don't need to be "superior" to something to question it...

Veritas

HRG:
Since our observations of the universe can be explained by various other models (cosmological models or creation by my cat last Thursday), the universe doesn't "witness" anything.

It is of course a blatant and unwarranted petitio principii to call the universe a "creation".


You certainly may choose to explain your observations of the universe by ANY other model that you choose, including your cat. That you CHOOSE another model, rather than acknowledging the “power of the Godhead” as Paul puts it, is indicative of your moral condition. That is, the moment you allow for the possibility of an Almighty Creator, this brings a host of implications – many of which are extremely discomfiting on a very personal level.

At the core, however, observations are limited to what exists, and how things behave. They cannot get at the “why” or the “origins” in an empirical way. So let’s not pretend that science can or does prove anything about the origin of the universe. Any model offered is at the core, hypothetical only. (And has been declared elsewhere, it doesn’t matter how many people adhere to a given hypothetical, that doesn’t convert the hypothesis to fact.)

So don’t deride the Christian for relying on “authority” to explain the origins of the Universe. Unless you were there, you must rely on some other “authority” as well.

So what would you call the universe, without being “blatant” or “unwarranted?” Indeed, if you believe the universe was NOT created – it is an article of faith in your personal creed.

Unless of course you have videotape you’d like to share with us…

Veritas

To be precise - you need a "superior standard" - and you assert that "reason" is a superior standard.

So what are the particular "reasons" by which you deem the falsity of this document?

Please don't confuse "reasons" with "assumptions" which happens quite often.

If you mean "Reason" with a capital "R" - then I think you are operating on the assumptive level; as in "it isn't "reasonable" to believe the things written in a book by members of a cult..."

Theli

Well, in lack of solid proof... Isn't it superior?
What would you set higher?

I never claimed I was going to falsify the entire document. Where did you read this?

Ok, I won't if you won't.

Why do you think that?

Datheron

Theophilus,

Then you have already defined yourself to be in an infalsible position (and not an infallable one). That is, you have already defined the Bible to be the supreme authority, therefore it cannot be questioned. Can anyone else see the circular reasoning presented here?

- The Bible is supreme authority
- Any questions on its validity cannot be made because we lack a superior authority
- Since the Bible cannot be shown wrong, it must be right
- Since it is right, it must hold supreme authority

And similarly, I can make my own set of definitions. Catnip, for all purposes, I define is superior to the Bible. It is the authority which even God trembles to behold, and is mighty fearsome indeed. Not even God nor his error-ridden Bible may question the validity of catnip, for it is beyond their comprehension to understand the essence of its existence. Therefore, I have shown that my authority is greater than yours, and reduced yours to a pile of rubble.

HRG

What scripture? The Elder Edda says nothing about it, nor does the Tao-te-qing.
He told me, of course. What's your superior authority to judge his purrings ?

HRG.

Datheron

Veritas,

And that's the crux of the problem. The assumption of the existence of God entails a lot of additional properties, events, etc. which would then solidify his existence. Since all of such are shaky at best, we have no good reason to believe a God exists.

Indeed, science provides no means for us to beyond its bounds - i.e. we cannot use science in a place where science is applicable. The problem here is for anybody else to show that their system, whatever that might be, is applicable without resorting to ad ignoratum fallacies.

Can it be such that we have no idea what caused the Universe, if it even needs causing? I have argued on another thread (with Tercel) that the Laws of Causality are not obviously at work outside the Universe; nothing is, really. To claim that anything to have caused the Universe and that it needs a cause is an affirmative statement, and as such requires a valid explanation with supporting evidence. Saying that "I don't know" is probably the most truthful and honest answer.

theophilus

Are you asserting a miracle? Did you subject this to the rigorous test you suggest for such events?Perhaps this was just a revelation for you personally.

I have the authority of the word of God.