I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[LNC]

Sure, that doesn't fit at all with the current models we have for our universe. The Earth is on the periphery arm of the Milky Way Galaxy and we are on of the smallest planets in the solar system that is anchored by a poetically misnamed star called "The Sun", which is smaller than some of the stars seen through earthbound and space-based telescopes. It seems to me if we were the pinnacle of God's creation, wouldn't he have put at least closer to the center of our Galaxy and closer toward the center of the universe and have it remained FIXED IN PLACE. Therefore, I find your personal argument more than flawed.

 

Secondly, in terms of lifespan (going from the accepted life expectancy of now to the age of Methusaleh) the "God" that possibly created us would be eternal because humans can't conceive in REAL TERMS what 14 billion years is. This may be a metaphorical digression that doesn't hinder your case, but hugely finite is infinite in the mind of the average human. If a human were to count to a billion, it would take a person about 32 years of their natural life assuming the person was counting one number per second. Counting to 14,000,000,000 would take about 450 years (assuming the person who started counting was a member of the Medici Dynasty). Therefore, it is likely fair to assume that if a God created us, it would be very impersonal.

 

Furthermore, what is the nature of this being? Does this being have a name? Is it physical or extra-material? Since it left us on this blasted hunk of rock, does it even want to know us at all? Does it even care?

 

I may have made straw-men, false dichotomies, and category errors, but the physical nature of our placement in the old Universe definitely undermines anything the Bible says about the personal nature of God.

 

You apparently don't understand cosmology. If we were any closer to the center of the galaxy we wouldn't be here plunking away at our keyboards to one another. The center of the galaxy is a very hostile environment and we wouldn't have the type of planet that could support any life, let alone intelligent life. Second, if we were closer to the center of the galaxy, we wouldn't even have the ability to explore space as there would be too much dust and light to see much, if any of space. We are in what cosmologist Paul Davies calls the "Goldilocks Zone," where the conditions are just right to support higher life forms.

 

I don't see how your second point carries either logically or practically. Logically finite can never equal infinite. Even lots and lots of finite cannot ever add up to infinite. That would be a category mistake. So what if it takes a long time to count to 14 billion, apparently it is no problem with computers that have the right type of processor. By the way, an Intel 8 core processor has 2.3 billion transistors on it. Obviously, somehow they counted all those transistors without taking 74 years to do so (that would be the equivalent number in your comparison to 14B).

 

The nature of the being is explained in the Bible and it would take too long to explain here. His name is Yahweh (which is the English transliteration of the Hebrew). God is non-physical, spirit. Yes, God does desire a relationship with us, which is why he created us (in his image.) He does care, which is why he sent his son to earth to die at our hands to pay the penalty that we owed for our rebellion against him.

 

Maybe if you explore the cosmological implications of our place in the universe and in this galaxy you will be left with wonder rather than ridicule. I would start with Paul Davies, he is not a Christian, but is a pretty good thinker. He holds a PhD in Physics from University College London and is a Templeton Prize winner. He teaches at Arizona State.

[Antlerman]

Remember, I don't come here to convert or save anyone; just to have some interesting conversations and better understand why someone would leave the faith.

Hi Freeday. Still struggling?

 

I've been a bit distracted as of late, so forgive me if I haven't been as aware as usual. I have to admit I am a little confused. I thought you had found a point of separation for yourself some time ago from this. Are you still on that edge again, testing things?

 

I have no interest in you thinking one way or the other, but it seems apparent to me you are still not quite comfortable with your faith. As I recall, you made a personal break from it a few years back, yet now you are on that edge again testing it here. Why is that? You don't have to answer me, it just seems apparent to me you're not entirely at ease with all of it again, like before. Debates aside, what's it all about?

[Kuroikaze]

I know that it is not generally accepted these days; however, it is up to the atheist to explain why the change in definition is merited.

 

 

Why would it be up to anyone to explain why the merit of the change of meaning in a word. Words are just organized sounds, they have meaning only because we choose to associate meaning to them. Meaning changes over time, try to read an unaltered copy of the KJV or Canterbury tales and tell me they are writing in English, 16th century English is almost another language.

 

Its not like Atheists have some group sitting around thinking this stuff up. The definition just changed over time, because that is what happens.

 

Anyway, at the end of the day, I'm me, not some words in a dictionary. If you want to define atheism in some way that does not fit who I am, then by your standard I'm not an atheist. Fine, I'm not terribly attached to that word, and its not needed to describe myself, there are plenty of other words to use.

 

 

Edit: When you say Atheists believe "X" and we say that atheists do not believe "X," what we are really saying is "I" don't believe "X." If you can wrap your head around that maybe you will grasp that this semantic argument is pointless.

[pitchu]

Also, the little grandma that you suppose will go to hell will probably not in my opinion.

 

This little grandma is greatly relieved!

 

Yipeeeee!

 

The bible states only one sin; rejecting the holy spirit.

 

Aw, shit...

[MathGeek]

I know that it is not generally accepted these days; however, it is up to the atheist to explain why the change in definition is merited.

 

Maybe so. I am unsure myself beyond the impossibility of proving a universal negative. Does the same apply to the change in the word "gay" too? Or even "Jew"?

 

I don't use such explanations. The OT law was for a specific time and people, just as our laws have changed as out times and people have changed. The OT law had a purpose for that people, to protect them as they entered a land with people who followed other gods and had other practices. It was to keep the Jewish people separated from the people around them and to keep their focus on God. If you can show me that the OT law still applies to this time, people, and place, I would be happy to discuss that with you, but you will be hard pressed to make that case. For one, the Temple has been destroyed for nearly 2K years, so there is no animal sacrifice, nor has there been since 70 A.D. That was a central part of OT law. However, that sacrifice was fulfilled completely by Christ's death on the cross.

 

From what I've found, it is both actually. Jesus I think came to give a New Law and enhance the Old One. The splits within Christianity confirm my point of view on this one. There are so many different school of thought on the Bible (from the ill-educated "knee school" perspective to the ones that many professional pastors and apologists have). You are right on the animal sacrifice, but other Old Testament Laws (like issues dealing with food safety and how children should respect their parents) are still in practice today. Even Gary Demar quoted a scripture about how a railing should placed around a balcony to ensure that nobody falls off. If I can find the video, I will send it to you.

 

I this particular issue is a mixed one at best.

 

I don't believe that I am naïve enough to believe that everyone agrees with me, nor do I see those who don't as my enemies. I hope that I have shown that in my interactions on this site. When called names (which I have been a number of times in this thread), I have not returned fire. When called a liar (which I have been more than once on this thread), I have not returned the epithet. No, I don't see you or anyone else on this site as an enemy, but as a person who has the same intrinsic value as me. I don't call followers of false gods atheists (as they did to Christians in early Rome), but pagans (which is the proper term).

 

Your worldview would be right or wrong based upon how it squares with what we know about the world. That is the test of any worldview. I don't know enough about your worldview to judge it.

 

Very true on your part. You have been respectful with me and everybody else. My only problem with you has been the fact that yet another Christian has come here to play apologist. Beyond that, I have no other problem with you.

 

As for my worldview, I think my understanding of science and philosophy (however little on both accounts) sufficiently satisfies my point of view. Since you suggested Paul Davies to me, you may want to read Jean-Paul Sartre (I need to read more of his work) and some of the other 20th century existentialist philosophers. It may enhance your understanding of what materialism is.

[MathGeek]

You apparently don't understand cosmology. If we were any closer to the center of the galaxy we wouldn't be here plunking away at our keyboards to one another. The center of the galaxy is a very hostile environment and we wouldn't have the type of planet that could support any life, let alone intelligent life. Second, if we were closer to the center of the galaxy, we wouldn't even have the ability to explore space as there would be too much dust and light to see much, if any of space. We are in what cosmologist Paul Davies calls the "Goldilocks Zone," where the conditions are just right to support higher life forms.

 

True, I was making philosophical inferences when the evidence should not have let me there. I was of the mind that humans believed that they were the center of the universe akin to Genesis chapter 1 and 2. They were God's highest creation therefore how can we be blamed for thinking like Ptolemy did prior to the invention of the telescope. Science triumphs over artistic license without a doubt.

 

I don't see how your second point carries either logically or practically. Logically finite can never equal infinite. Even lots and lots of finite cannot ever add up to infinite. That would be a category mistake. So what if it takes a long time to count to 14 billion, apparently it is no problem with computers that have the right type of processor. By the way, an Intel 8 core processor has 2.3 billion transistors on it. Obviously, somehow they counted all those transistors without taking 74 years to do so (that would be the equivalent number in your comparison to 14B).

 

Again, same mistake as above. Science has proven that the universe is old and that we live on a small planet that is capable of rearing carbon-based life. Considering the "humans are the highest creation" line, the fact that a God created this expanding universe and we are on this tiny mote of blue dust sort of cements my point. It's a giant metaphor at the end of it all. I speaking in a purely humanistic perspective because Jesus came to save the humans, not the machines invented by humans.

 

The nature of the being is explained in the Bible and it would take too long to explain here. His name is Yahweh (which is the English transliteration of the Hebrew). God is non-physical, spirit. Yes, God does desire a relationship with us, which is why he created us (in his image.) He does care, which is why he sent his son to earth to die at our hands to pay the penalty that we owed for our rebellion against him.

 

Considering we are standing in terms of the gigantic Universe, it seems to me that such a gigantic God could really care less whether or not I worship it. I remember you or somebody else saying (inserting CYA verbiage here) that God owes us nothing, therefore why do I owe him anything at all? I never asked to be created, and if God owes me nothing then why should I be eternally punished from knowingly or unknowingly committing sins? Why should I owe him worship? Why should I waste my time trying to understand a being that is coming from an ultimately biased lens anyway?

 

If my own atheism sounds like a rebellion, I won't deny that possibility. At the end of it all, I think I have drawn an intellectual conclusion and that is that.

[LNC]

Bogus again.

 

The job of the parent is to establish rules to ensure the safety of the child, but I think the entire fruit scenario in Genesis is still God's doing. Since God created man fully formed, we should likely assume that Adam that had the capability of reason at his disposal and the ability to recognize deception. I have read Genesis 2 a few times and I don't see that scenario playing out at all. All we really are two fully formed adults that have childish abilities when it comes to reasoning skills, but this opens up a contradiction of a specific kind. I call it a thematic contradiction. Since God gave Adam stuardship over the Earth, wouldn't he have been able to manage his own affair free of interference from God and yet Adam didn't have enough foresight to tell his wife that eating the fruit would cause trouble. Since women supposedly held a secondary place in Hebraic society, why didn't Adam use his power to subdue Eve? If the story of Adam and Eve was written from a perspective that women were to be secondary to the man, then why didn't she put the fruit down? In my opinion, since God was omniscient and he gave Adam sub-standard motivation to remain in Paradise, then it really goes back to him as having fault.

 

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when we look at our world. Billions of dollars were cheated out of very intelligent people (most of whom were smart enough to make those millions of dollars in the first place) by Howard Madoff, so it is quite possible that people can have a difficult time recognizing deception, especially in this case when they had never experienced deception previously. It is quite possible, in fact most commentators agree that Adam was probably standing with his wife while she was being deceived. So, the rest of your comments seem to be impertinent to the situation. Again, you have not established why God would be at fault in this situation.

[MathGeek]

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion when we look at our world. Billions of dollars were cheated out of very intelligent people (most of whom were smart enough to make those millions of dollars in the first place) by Howard Madoff, so it is quite possible that people can have a difficult time recognizing deception, especially in this case when they had never experienced deception previously. It is quite possible, in fact most commentators agree that Adam was probably standing with his wife while she was being deceived. So, the rest of your comments seem to be impertinent to the situation. Again, you have not established why God would be at fault in this situation.

 

I agree with you here up to a point. The story is silent in this regard and we are left to wonder whether either of us is correct. Intelligent people could be swindled in this day and age yet that is because we live in sin-infested world, yet they were at the apex of genetic perfection and given the cushiest life imaginable. God was basically coddling them with the warm weather and the docile animals, therefore it shouldn't be suprising that God gave them the ability to at least to be logically efficient and able to recognize deception easily. My basis is that God was negligent in making his top creatures. Since God failed to make those capacities, then I can't help but believe that the "free will argument" has been rendered moot.

 

I have made my case, it is now on you to explain why I am wrong.

[freeday]

I see where you are coming from. Yes there are people who think that you can't have morals outside of christianity, sadly of which i was one of them. You don't need the Bible to derive there are universal morals. I would have to look it up, but there are secular ethical theories which believe in universal ethics which are derived from logic outside the bible.

Good.

 

as far as free speech, I don't see a problem in questioning Jesus or God. I still affirm that there is no need to blasphemy His name even though you question his existence.

Why is blasphemy outside of free speech, and how do you define blasphemy? I have heard the most outrageous definitions of it. Some claim that just to say "Jesus didn't exist" as to be blasphemy. And the second thing is, why is asking a Christian a question who will go to heaven considered to be blasphemy? What exactly did I do to blaspheme your God? Isn't it just a matter that you were offended, rather than God is so small that he's offended for people questioning his existence or morality? Already the Greek philosophers questioned the morality of their Gods, and see what happened to them. They died. But so did Jesus, Peter, and Paul.

 

--edit--

 

And another point is: if atheism is said to be a religion by Christians, doesn't it mean that Christians are offending our faith when they call us immoral or call Evolution evil? Should we conclude that free speech of offending someones worldview only apply when Christians does it, but atheists have no right to offend back? hypocrisy at its best. If Christians have the right to say atheists are evil, immoral, and are going to Hell for their sins, then atheists get the right to say the same back. It is as simple as that.

 

the bible does not make this very clear, i believe Jesus specified against the holy spirit, not himself. I think this would be reserved for severe situations such as forcing a person to bow to another god, or no god at all. It would be like me threatening you to believe in God. Or Most likely, Jesus was refering to a manipulative behavoir where someone misleads a person maliciously against God; especially a person in authority.

[freeday]

Remember, I don't come here to convert or save anyone; just to have some interesting conversations and better understand why someone would leave the faith.

Hi Freeday. Still struggling?

 

I've been a bit distracted as of late, so forgive me if I haven't been as aware as usual. I have to admit I am a little confused. I thought you had found a point of separation for yourself some time ago from this. Are you still on that edge again, testing things?

 

I have no interest in you thinking one way or the other, but it seems apparent to me you are still not quite comfortable with your faith. As I recall, you made a personal break from it a few years back, yet now you are on that edge again testing it here. Why is that? You don't have to answer me, it just seems apparent to me you're not entirely at ease with all of it again, like before. Debates aside, what's it all about?

 

I never separated, just ferreted out the information with no influence from outside sources to come to a more comprehesive belief. I am struggling, but in a good way taking care of my new son! He is such a blessing, yet takes up a lot of time.

[Antlerman]

Remember, I don't come here to convert or save anyone; just to have some interesting conversations and better understand why someone would leave the faith.

Hi Freeday. Still struggling?

 

I've been a bit distracted as of late, so forgive me if I haven't been as aware as usual. I have to admit I am a little confused. I thought you had found a point of separation for yourself some time ago from this. Are you still on that edge again, testing things?

 

I have no interest in you thinking one way or the other, but it seems apparent to me you are still not quite comfortable with your faith. As I recall, you made a personal break from it a few years back, yet now you are on that edge again testing it here. Why is that? You don't have to answer me, it just seems apparent to me you're not entirely at ease with all of it again, like before. Debates aside, what's it all about?

 

I never separated, just ferreted out the information with no influence from outside sources to come to a more comprehesive belief. I am struggling, but in a good way taking care of my new son! He is such a blessing, yet takes up a lot of time.

Cool! A new son? Congrats.

 

I've always been curious about how the world began to look to you after your awakening here back in August of '06. It took me a couple minutes just now, but I found the thread we were in. Look familiar? http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206354

 

this is what religion does. it helps guide you in your walk of spirituality. regardless what religion. there are hundreds of different religions, there is one for everyone out there.

Welcome out of the closet!!!

You are now officially a born-again liberal! Congratulations! Now where are you going to go to church? Seriously Freeday, you are now on the path of salvation of your mind and spirit! Welcome to freedom from dogma. Welcome to the real world.

 

i must confess, i haven't been to church in a month or two. my opinions have changed a little. i do believe that there are different religions for the purpose of that thier are different opinions. who's to say which is the "truth." i guess where i have changed is that, although i strongly feel i am right, there are other people who feel the same about thier religion. and who am i to say that they are wrong and going to burn in hell for what they believe. the fact is, nobody knows who is right, because if they did, there would be one central religion in the world.

 

 

Sorry to drag this out from the past, but this was just one of those bright moments for me here on the ExC, to see that discussions of ideas do in fact matter.

 

You have to forgive me if I haven't quite caught the full gist of where you're at now, as I haven't been able to devote lots of time to the threads lately. Do you still see that religious beliefs are not about who is right and who is wrong, but rather as systems of support for people in their individual and social lives; that there is not just one correct way and others are lost and blind for not following it? Please say yes...

[LNC]

Doesn't follow.

 

It's just as possible (using my imagination and influence of alternative religious ideas) that we all are infinite spiritual beings who possess these bodies for a short time, and then transition back to whatever other dimension, then to return back to new bodies here or in another world.

 

If personal agents needs to be created (us) to exist, then the explanation is not to bring in another super-personal-agent which created us and exists without having to be created. The solution is not to give this super-being a free-pass from the criteria you demand on our existence.

 

That still doesn't explain how we exist as infinite and personal beings, even if we were infinite (and by that, I assume you mean eternal) spirits. It sounds like you are describing us as gods. You also haven't explained the existence of matter, or are we to assume that the material world is illusion? Also, if we are eternal or infinite as you describe, why don't we know this? Why must we merely conjecture about this?

 

I don't know why your objection has any merit since you still haven't explained the existence of the personal. If you rule out God, what are you left with? There ultimately has to be a starting point since we are finite beings.

 

Huh?

 

So if it was 15 billions years old, then it could be a non-personal agent? Or if it was 13 billion years old, then it was a turtle? I don't see the logic at all with your infinite v personal requirements.

 

You didn't understand my intent. If the universe were the product of an impersonal agent, we would expect it to be infinitely old, not finitely old. An impersonal agent would not have a way to trigger a later formation of the universe. So, the means and the ends would exist concurrently, not consecutively. There would be no intelligence to trigger the universe to begin at some future point of the existence of the trigger, for intelligence is a characteristic of a personal agent, not an impersonal one.

 

I guess you kind of have to, because, if God is eternal, then God is... what? Impersonal or personal?

 

If the Universe is a drop in a multiverse of universes, and it came to existence during an eternal process of universes coming and going, then the infinite nature of total existence would be there for anything to exist. Maybe Panentheism is a better view than Theism? Maybe the very fabric of existence is alive and conscious, and we're just the finite reflections of that infinite?

 

That is just the point, God is eternal, but God is spirit and we don't know of any laws of physics that tell us that spirit cannot be eternal. However, we do know of laws of physics that tell us that matter is not eternal and the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. We also know of the law of causality, on which all of science is based. Since the universe is an effect, it requires a cause. Since the universe encompasses all of matter and the universe is the effect, then it follows that the cause is immaterial. Since the cause is neither material nor impersonal (explained above), then it follows that the cause is immaterial and personal. I hope that clears it up.

 

When you appeal to multiverse, which level of multiverse are you appealing to? Anything above a level 1 multiverse is an appeal to metaphysics as we have no way of measuring or empirically verifying anything beyond an L1 mutiverse. So, you are in no better position as an atheist or agnostic positing multiverse than positing God. Actually, you are in a worse position as the meta-universe would still require the same explanation for its existence. No multiverse theory that I am aware of posits an eternal process of universes. Panentheism is a better explanation than atheism, but not a better explanation than theism as it still doesn't address the existence of the personal as panentheism isn't about a personal force, but an impersonal one.

[LNC]

Why? From your logic it would be logical to assume a woody creator of trees, or a gelatinous creator of jellyfish. Just because the qualia of personality is important to you doesn't mean that it is important to any possible Creator.

 

Perhaps you have some experimental evidence that supports your hypothesis of a personal agent. But I doubt it. The math of physics gets us back to a few nanoseconds after the initiation of "the big bang". No one can "yet" get farther back then that including you. The God of the Bible is only about 6000 years old considerably older than me, but orders of magnitude younger than the Universe.

 

It is useless to assume that there is something older than the universe, because the initiation gave rise to time as well as space -- no time, no universe, or no universe no time. It is nonsense to ask what was before, because there was no before. That is time itself is only about 14 billion years old give or take a few ticks. Putting God before that is just speculation without evidence.

 

If something can self-exist without an endless regression of causes, then the universe can self exist without an endless regression of causes. At least we know the universe is here, a thing we don't know about God or any other Creator candidate. The "big bang" whatever it turns out to be is likely the end of causal regression or rather much more likely the end than some superhuman in the nothingness of no time.

 

I grant you that the first argument that I gave for personality, which you respond to above, is not the strongest of the arguments for God being personal; however, I think that your response, though interesting, is not pertinent. You are describing physical characteristics or make up of things, not immaterial make up. We can scientifically explain how physical entities are made up and that goes back to the existence of matter itself; however, it is not the same to attempt that with our non-physical make up. We can't take our personality and put it into a test tube and break it down to its physical properties - it has none. That is just the point, there is a part of us that is not scientific or reducible to the sum of its parts, and that part has to come from somewhere.

 

Regarding your statement that the God of the Bible is only about 6,000 years old, I wonder from where this number comes? It sounds like you buy into the young-earth view of a 6,000 year old universe. I don't and, as such, don't put such an age on God. Even if the young-earth view were correct, it wouldn't mean that God was 6K years old. That is not sound thinking.

 

Why is it useless to figure that something is older than the universe? If you believe this, then I assume that you believe that the universe is either eternally old or self-caused? The first premise is not sustainable with our current understanding of physics and the second premise is philosophically untenable. So, what other alternative explanations do you have?

 

To say that if something immaterial can self-exist without an endless regression of causes, then the universe can as well, is simply a category mistake on your part. You must deny physics and philosophy to come to such a conclusion. Is that what you are claiming? In no way does a self-existent timeless, immaterial being violate either physics or philosophy, it is a concept that philosophers have held as possible from early on and this doesn't even touch in the realm of science as God is not physical, which is where science draws its boundaries. Infinite causal regressions are fraught with logical absurdities, so in no way does that explanation make more sense than a personal God.

[Astreja]

That is just the point, God is eternal, but God is spirit and we don't know of any laws of physics that tell us that spirit cannot be eternal.

Existential fallacy. I also don't see any feasible way for a finite being to determine whether or not some other entity is eternal or temporal. We don't even have a coherent definition of what "spirit" actually is, assuming it exists at all.

 

Since the universe is an effect, it requires a cause.

If your hypothetical god is eternal and does not require a cause, this is a special pleading fallacy.

[LNC]

I can't help but repeat what I have said to other christians who believe as you do. You refer to rebellion. I'm assuming you mean: unbelief=rebellion.

So therefore, the unbeliever who lived a morally good life will be punished because of unbelief, while the serial killer-turned-christian (jeffrey dahmer, for example) will be forgiven and rewarded. This is supposedly a just god practicing "justice". Yet the bible admits it is not justice, but revenge;vengeance. Revenge for unbelief-not immorality. All the guilty criminals have a simple way out: sincere christian belief. In the christian world view, our actions can be overlooked, but our beliefs, unforgivable. This is the best reason to reject biblical christianity for the cynical and inhuman religion that it is. Cynical, as to human nature (all evil and no good), and inhuman for unjust, cruel punishment.

 

Unbelief is part of the rebellion, but not the whole of it. Lack of trust of God does lead to the other forms of rebellion for which we are all accountable and culpable. None of us lives a morally good life in God's eyes, we only fool ourselves into thinking that we do. This comes from a lack of understanding of God's standard which is "You therefore must be perfect, as you heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). James tells us "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (2:10) God values those who trust in him for their sins, yes even a Jeffrey Dahmer if he truly believed, more than those who live self-righteous lives in rebellion (lack of trust in Him). God is just, we are deceived into thinking that we are more just than he, but that is called self-righteousness and pride. God doesn't punish anyone for unbelief, he sends people to hell for their rebellion. Any sovereign has the right to impose judgment on those who seek to usurp his authority, and that is what God punishes those who rebel against him for doing. I think you misunderstand what trusting God means.

[Astreja]

God doesn't punish anyone for unbelief, he sends people to hell for their rebellion. Any sovereign has the right to impose judgment on those who seek to usurp his authority, and that is what God punishes those who rebel against him for doing. I think you misunderstand what trusting God means.

I cannot trust an entity that would not only create such a place as hell, but actually use it to punish sentient beings.

 

I simply can't do it.

 

My first instinct is not love and obedience; it is horror, and rage.

[Ouroboros]

That still doesn't explain how we exist as infinite and personal beings, even if we were infinite (and by that, I assume you mean eternal) spirits. It sounds like you are describing us as gods. You also haven't explained the existence of matter, or are we to assume that the material world is illusion? Also, if we are eternal or infinite as you describe, why don't we know this? Why must we merely conjecture about this?

To use an infinite God without an explanation to his infinite being is not any better answer to why we exist. If imagination is the key to come up with reasonable explanations to our existence, my idea works just as well. I could, if I wanted to, argue with you and come up with reasonable explanations to how and why we are infinite beings, and that we are truly part of God, that we true nature of God, and how we as a unified energy desired a finite universe to get experiences within, but I'm not going to bother, because obviously your delusion is the only true delusion.

 

You haven't explained how God managed to "create" matter from nothing, so why are you even bother asking me for evidence for my little thought experiment?

 

I don't know why your objection has any merit since you still haven't explained the existence of the personal. If you rule out God, what are you left with? There ultimately has to be a starting point since we are finite beings.

So you are saying: An infinite being with an infinite consciousness, exists without explanation and is personal, and without explanation can create other personal beings from nothing. And that somehow makes more sense?

 

You didn't understand my intent. If the universe were the product of an impersonal agent, we would expect it to be infinitely old, not finitely old. An impersonal agent would not have a way to trigger a later formation of the universe. So, the means and the ends would exist concurrently, not consecutively. There would be no intelligence to trigger the universe to begin at some future point of the existence of the trigger, for intelligence is a characteristic of a personal agent, not an impersonal one.

Still doesn't explain the need of an infinite consciousness as a requirement for an finite existence of matter.

 

Or as you would say: it's pure conjecture.

 

That is just the point, God is eternal, but God is spirit and we don't know of any laws of physics that tell us that spirit cannot be eternal.

Wait a second, you are saying God can be spirit, because spirits can be eternal, because we can't prove they are not? And yet you want to refute my earlier post above by asking me how we could be eternal spirits? You are completely contradicting yourself. Your own argument comes and bites you in the butt! If God is spirit, and spirits can be eternal, than we could be eternal spirits. You can't deny that.

 

However, we do know of laws of physics that tell us that matter is not eternal and the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. We also know of the law of causality, on which all of science is based. Since the universe is an effect, it requires a cause. Since the universe encompasses all of matter and the universe is the effect, then it follows that the cause is immaterial. Since the cause is neither material nor impersonal (explained above), then it follows that the cause is immaterial and personal. I hope that clears it up.

No, it does not explain at all why the cause is not impersonal. It's pure conjecture.

 

When you appeal to multiverse, which level of multiverse are you appealing to? Anything above a level 1 multiverse is an appeal to metaphysics as we have no way of measuring or empirically verifying anything beyond an L1 mutiverse. So, you are in no better position as an atheist or agnostic positing multiverse than positing God. Actually, you are in a worse position as the meta-universe would still require the same explanation for its existence. No multiverse theory that I am aware of posits an eternal process of universes. Panentheism is a better explanation than atheism, but not a better explanation than theism as it still doesn't address the existence of the personal as panentheism isn't about a personal force, but an impersonal one.

Do you believe God exists within or outside the existence of this universe? Do you believe Heaven exists? Do you believe Hell exists? Does all the 7 heavens Paul talked about (or was it three?) exist? If so, are they not other universes? Or do they exist within this universe? If you claim they are other universe, then you TOO believe in multiple universes. So in essence, you deny me to believe on thing, and yet you believe the same.

 

And the multiverse theories I have looked in to, do indeed posit eternal processes of universes. I don't know which Creationist propaganda you are reading, but you definitely are not reading any of the larger publications of scientific material. Take any of the popular magazines like Popular Science, Scientific America, New Scientist, and the do present these ideas occasionally, and the idea of how to solve the problem of the eternal.

 

Panentehism is still a better explanation, since it is both personal and impersonal. We all are, the sum of it all, the consciousness of existence.

 

So to conclude your standpoint: eternal spirits can not exist, unless it is the eternal spirit you believe in. Multiple universes can not exist, unless they are the ones you have appointed to be parallel universes to ours. That's great. You are carrying the torch of complete truth and knowledge. Btw, what is the next winning Lotto number?

[LNC]

Wow, nothing to contribute but a personal attack. Shame, shame.

Sorry, I meant to make an observation of your grammar, not you as a person. I apologize if you took this personally.

 

It is not a result of leaving the truth as has been pointed out again and again to you. As everyone has said, people who leave all religions and cults experience saddness. Until you address this, stop repeating yourself. As i said too, (which you still haven't responded to), i left christianity twice and when i went back the second time i felt a loss and saddness about leaving atheisim. Also, as far as "leaving" family and friends goes, in my experience and in many others experience on here, it is the friends and family that turns on the one who left.

What made you sad to leave atheism? Why did you leave it?

 

You know, the six days of creation and Bible geneologies. Old earth creationists just compromise their beliefs by fabricated the idea that "day" means whatever the crap they want it to mean.

That is a later interpretation by Bishop Ussher came up with in the 17th century, but that is not what the early church fathers believed. So, you have your history wrong.

 

As with both links i provided, there are several theories on the origin of life. Some believe it sprang forth from a primordial soup and others think it came from space in through various means.

 

It appears you are no different than kcdad, and old earth creationist. Since you obviously think the Bible does not advocate a literal 6 day creation, am i too assume you also believe in evolution and an old universe? If so, then what is your point in trying to debate life's origins with me?

Which one do you ascribe to? Origin of life science has pretty much discounted the belief that a primordial soup ever existed and the atmosphere of the early earth would have been much too hostile to permit abiogenesis to occur. Panspermia (life from outer space) also has its problems mostly due to the hostile environment of space being filled with radiation and other threats to life.

 

I don't believe that the Genesis account has to be interpreted as six 24 hour days, the Hebrew language has other possible interpretations. I do believe that certain aspects of evolution are likely; however, I think other aspects of the theory are highly problematic. One of those problems is the origin of life, which technically is outside of the realm of the theory of evolution, which explains changes over time, not the origin of life. Yet, the origin of life issue is one that is proving very troublesome for naturalists.

 

I'm sorry, i didn't know you were a scientist with a gigantic degree on the subject. Of thats right, you are not.

Does one have to be a physician to notice that a person with a gaping wound is going to bleed to death unless given proper medical attention? I am not sure that I mentioned what my degrees were, did I? However, my degrees are not the issue, I believe that we were talking about the theory of evolution and the problems with the theory.

 

How is that a straw man argument chief? You believe that an invisible, omnipotent being who lives in an invisible kingdom created everything by merely blinking or snapping his fingers or what have you.

God doesn't have fingers and doesn't snap. However, you asked a question about the straw man argument, so let me provide an answer. A straw man argument is a misrepresentation of an opponent's position in order to more easily knock it down. You claim that I appeal to magic (a common straw man argument used by atheists and agnostics against Christians) and then attempt to ridicule me for such. I don't appeal to magic at all as magic is based upon illusion. To say that God is invisible is not to say that he is not real. If that were the case, then we would have to throw out much of physics as it is based upon things that are not visible to us (neutrinos, dark matter, etc.). So, is that a point on which you want to stand?

 

The fact that they don't know for sure does not mean they believe it just randomly popped into existence. The use of science, the scientific method, and knowledge is a far more logical way to find out the truth than to just give up and say "goddidit". You advocate pseudeoscience, which is not even peer reviewed in ANY scientific publication nor debated in any real venue where science is debated and discussed. So really, how can you even come at me with this garbade?

 

Read 'Cosmos' by Cark Sagan, and 'A Brief History of Time', by Stephen Hawking. Or check out the Talk Origins or Pandas Thumb website for evolution.

 

However, if one discounts one set of explanations (the supernatural) then one is left with the natural and that means that you have to explain the universe as having popped into existence uncaused or having existed form eternity past. Science discounts the latter and philosophy the former. So, what you are saying is that "nothingdidit" is better than "goddidit"? I don't see that as satisfying at all. What you are appealing to is known as scientism, not science. Scientific positivism, which is what you seem to be advocating has been shown to be philosophically problematic for years as it is reductionistic in nature and discounts truth that lies outside of the scientific method. The basis of scientific positivism is self-defeating as it cannot be tested scientifically. So, really, I don't know how you promote such faulty ideas. So, tell me what these books do to prove your point? I don't see anything in them that does.

[LNC]

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to top you in the act of not answering something.

 

Why would it be so hard to not place temptations in their way? With free will there will be temptations, the kinds like, "should i buy this lottery ticket", or "should i fornicate with this woman". There is more than enough temptation in a christians worldview since they have villianized damn near everything without having god place them directly in their pathway. The simple fact is that temptation or no temptation, the price paid by the mortal human is far far FAR more horrific and barbaric than the sin itself. Infinate torment for finate sins is criminal beyond measure.

 

You're right, god didn't place a loaded gun in the room, he placed something there far more sinister and dangerous, death, hell and eternal torture. I don't have children but even so, i can still judge right from wrong. You obviously cannot. I would be to blame if i put a gun in a room full of kids and told them not to touch it. I know they are kids and curious, and fallible. I know i created a damn dangerous, deady situation. I would be completly to blame. Don't believe me, try it in a court of law and find out what they would say. Whats more, one would never have to place blame on either me or my children for the wrong because i would not construct such an insane situation as that, i would simply have the intellect to not put the damn gun there in the first damn place.

 

In short, i do want a world with rules and consequences. However, what you advocate is not this. You advocate a world of barbarism and insanity. A world were the punishment far outweights the crime. A world were it is "just" and "right" for a child to have his fingers cut off for the mere crime of picking his nose, as SWIM's post on Hell addressed. Things such as this. If you think i am being over the top and harsh with this statement about what you believe, i am not. You do believe that hell awaits those who commited the pety crime of merely not believing in your god, that all the ills of the world, the wars, the diseases, death, suffering, etc. was all "rightly" brought on by two people eating fruit from a god damn tree. That one sin brought all the shit that is in the world into existence. Thats why the analogy of a little child having his fingers cut off for picking his nose is spot on.

Maybe God wanted to give them a reason to trust in him. You see it as temptation, maybe God saw it as a way to give them a small way to trust in him since they didn't have to trust him for their food, water, etc. As far as temptations go, it was as small a temptation as it could be. I don't think that temptation is the sole domain of the Christian worldview. Are you saying that as an atheist there are no temptations any more for you? You also misunderstand the nature of the sin. Sin is rebellion against an infinite God. It is not just the nature of the sin that merits the punishment, it is also the one against whom you have sinned. Threatening your neighbor will get you a lesser punishment than threatening the President of the U.S. So, sinning against an eternal God merits an eternal punishment. Besides, why would anyone who has rejected God in the finite world want to spend eternity with him?

 

God placed one tree out of probably thousands for them to avoid, how is that a huge temptation? They didn't need the fruit from that tree as they had more than they could ever eat on the others. Why do you assume that I cannot judge right from wrong? Adam and Eve weren't kids, so your analogy breaks down. They were grown adults with a full explanation of the consequences of disobedience and a full understanding of the goodness of the God who created them and provided for their every need.

 

How do you figure that I don't advocate a world with rules and consequences, isn't that what you are railing against? Barbarism and insanity would be a world where people could do whatever they wanted with no consequences. Again, you have to do more than just assert that the punishment didn't fit the crime. We don't hear of Adam and Eve complaining to God when he gave them the rule or when he gave the consequences. So, let me ask you, on what do you base your morality? You seem quite judgmental of God, so on what system do you base such a judgment? Just curious.

[LNC]

As Cheif said, it is all hearsay. No eyewitness accounts. It would be like me saying, "Godzilla lived in 1950's-60's Japan", without me ever being born in that time or having lived there.

Are you kidding me? You need to do a little homework before making statements like this. Even liberal historians and atheists like Gerd Lüdemann would consider this a ridiculous assertion.

[Ouroboros]

Are you kidding me? You need to do a little homework before making statements like this. Even liberal historians and atheists like Gerd Lüdemann would consider this a ridiculous assertion.

So that's why he's part of the new Jesus project of trying to find proper evidence for the existence of Jesus, but using scientific methods this time?

 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/q...us_begins_anew/

http://christianpost.com/Education/Researc...s-10/index.html

 

Basically, they're doing it because the evidence was so convincing so they have to do it again? It's obvious that they have their doubts too. At least to who and what Jesus really was. A teacher who made to a legend. Like John Fromm in the Cargo Cult.

[Astreja]

Maybe God wanted to give them a reason to trust in him. You see it as temptation, maybe God saw it as a way to give them a small way to trust in him since they didn't have to trust him for their food, water, etc. As far as temptations go, it was as small a temptation as it could be.

A "small" temptation? With such far-reaching consequences? I don't think so.

 

...Why would anyone who has rejected God in the finite world want to spend eternity with him?

Big difference between not spending time with someone, and being tortured forever on the order of that person. You're kidding Me, right?

 

Why do you assume that I cannot judge right from wrong?

Um... Because you make excuses for a torturer?

 

Adam and Eve weren't kids, so your analogy breaks down. They were grown adults with a full explanation of the consequences of disobedience...

Ah, so they possessed knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree?

 

Barbarism and insanity would be a world where people could do whatever they wanted with no consequences.

cf. the Middle Ages church hierarchy, sending people to war and burning eccentric old women as "witches."

 

Again, you have to do more than just assert that the punishment didn't fit the crime.

Finite crime, infinite punishment? What part of 'unjust' do you not comprehend, LNC? You can whine all you want, but your fictional god is a monster and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for making excuses for its inexcusable behaviours.

 

So, let me ask you, on what do you base your morality?

Empathy, community standards, and reason.

 

You seem quite judgmental of God, so on what system do you base such a judgment? Just curious.

ibid.

[agnosticator]

I can't help but repeat what I have said to other christians who believe as you do. You refer to rebellion. I'm assuming you mean: unbelief=rebellion.

So therefore, the unbeliever who lived a morally good life will be punished because of unbelief, while the serial killer-turned-christian (jeffrey dahmer, for example) will be forgiven and rewarded. This is supposedly a just god practicing "justice". Yet the bible admits it is not justice, but revenge;vengeance. Revenge for unbelief-not immorality. All the guilty criminals have a simple way out: sincere christian belief. In the christian world view, our actions can be overlooked, but our beliefs, unforgivable. This is the best reason to reject biblical christianity for the cynical and inhuman religion that it is. Cynical, as to human nature (all evil and no good), and inhuman for unjust, cruel punishment.

 

Unbelief is part of the rebellion, but not the whole of it. Lack of trust of God does lead to the other forms of rebellion for which we are all accountable and culpable. None of us lives a morally good life in God's eyes, we only fool ourselves into thinking that we do. This comes from a lack of understanding of God's standard which is "You therefore must be perfect, as you heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). James tells us "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." (2:10) God values those who trust in him for their sins, yes even a Jeffrey Dahmer if he truly believed, more than those who live self-righteous lives in rebellion (lack of trust in Him). God is just, we are deceived into thinking that we are more just than he, but that is called self-righteousness and pride. God doesn't punish anyone for unbelief, he sends people to hell for their rebellion. Any sovereign has the right to impose judgment on those who seek to usurp his authority, and that is what God punishes those who rebel against him for doing. I think you misunderstand what trusting God means.

 

I understand perfectly what "trusting god " means. Trust is belief in god's reliability, justice, forgiveness, etc. which boils down to FAITH. Trust=faith. In order to trust or have faith in the biblegod, we first have to believe he exists and that the bible is telling the truth about him. The unbeliever that never believed is going to hell for unbelief-not lack of trust. Ordinary "trust" refers to someone whom we know within a relationship. "Trust" or "faith"doesn't enter the picture for this unbeliever, because he/she doesn't believe this god exists.

 

You say, "God is just, we are deceived into thinking that we are more just than he, but that is called self-righteousness and pride."

This is not about ego, or pride, or usurping his authority. It's about truth and justice. A god that creates hell and sends people there for corporal punishment because they don't believe, and don't have faith, is morally corrupt. You believe god values people who have faith regardless of the horrors they have committed. This belief is insanity. Does this monster-god exist? Is this truth? I think not.

 

Maybe someday you will understand that sin, salvation, and damnation are artificial.

[chefranden]

Wow, this post has gone all over the place.

 

I would postulate that we can't know the answer. It is not our burden to jugde; the authority of judgement is the responsibility of the Father. The bible does not disclose the by-laws of how this judgement will take place in these particular situations, or actually most situations. I feel confident is capitulating to God's discernment and authority through faith.

 

just my thoughts

 

Of course you can know. The criteria is clear enough. The criminal goes to heaven, and the father goes to hell. This is the absolute morality of God. Which never changes, until it changes.

[freeday]

Remember, I don't come here to convert or save anyone; just to have some interesting conversations and better understand why someone would leave the faith.

Hi Freeday. Still struggling?

 

I've been a bit distracted as of late, so forgive me if I haven't been as aware as usual. I have to admit I am a little confused. I thought you had found a point of separation for yourself some time ago from this. Are you still on that edge again, testing things?

 

I have no interest in you thinking one way or the other, but it seems apparent to me you are still not quite comfortable with your faith. As I recall, you made a personal break from it a few years back, yet now you are on that edge again testing it here. Why is that? You don't have to answer me, it just seems apparent to me you're not entirely at ease with all of it again, like before. Debates aside, what's it all about?

 

I never separated, just ferreted out the information with no influence from outside sources to come to a more comprehesive belief. I am struggling, but in a good way taking care of my new son! He is such a blessing, yet takes up a lot of time.

Cool! A new son? Congrats.

 

I've always been curious about how the world began to look to you after your awakening here back in August of '06. It took me a couple minutes just now, but I found the thread we were in. Look familiar? http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=206354

 

this is what religion does. it helps guide you in your walk of spirituality. regardless what religion. there are hundreds of different religions, there is one for everyone out there.

Welcome out of the closet!!!

You are now officially a born-again liberal! Congratulations! Now where are you going to go to church? Seriously Freeday, you are now on the path of salvation of your mind and spirit! Welcome to freedom from dogma. Welcome to the real world.

 

i must confess, i haven't been to church in a month or two. my opinions have changed a little. i do believe that there are different religions for the purpose of that thier are different opinions. who's to say which is the "truth." i guess where i have changed is that, although i strongly feel i am right, there are other people who feel the same about thier religion. and who am i to say that they are wrong and going to burn in hell for what they believe. the fact is, nobody knows who is right, because if they did, there would be one central religion in the world.

 

 

Sorry to drag this out from the past, but this was just one of those bright moments for me here on the ExC, to see that discussions of ideas do in fact matter.

 

You have to forgive me if I haven't quite caught the full gist of where you're at now, as I haven't been able to devote lots of time to the threads lately. Do you still see that religious beliefs are not about who is right and who is wrong, but rather as systems of support for people in their individual and social lives; that there is not just one correct way and others are lost and blind for not following it? Please say yes...

 

This is one of the best lessons you ever taught me and I do thank you for it. Although we can have fun debating on the boards, I know for sure, that I am not for sure, that I am right and you are wrong.