A Christian Framework

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Wololo, why are you here? Do you think you're going to re-covert people? Or are you having your own doubts? There's really no motive in between.

 

I'm here for discussion. I've made it clear several times that I'm not trying to convert people. Like everyone else, there is a time and place for doubt. To not have doubt is to be dishonest. The reason I'm here though, is just because I like to discuss, regardless of how juvenile people can behave about it. It's also a good way to learn to better articulate my perspective.

 

Wololo, you have failed to understand my question.  The entire phrase ex nihilo nihil fit should be taken into consideration; it means "out of nothing, nothing comes".  My question was not one of ex nihilo creation.  My question was: Whence cometh thy god?  You assert that god is infinite; but have no evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support this claim.  In essence, you would have me to believe that god came from nothing; yet you go to great lengths to explain how the universe did not come from nothing in order to avoid falling into the very trap into which you fall by simply asserting that "gawd's jist ahways biyun thar." 

 

Again, you are simply giving the Prime Mover argument a fresh coat of paint.  You can take everything back to the Prime Mover; yet you can't explain how that Prime Mover came to be, or whether there was a Pre-Prime Mover that put the Prime Mover into place.  Instead, you rest your entire case on the phrase, "Some things just have to be accepted by faith."  Well, actually, no they don't.  You can call me a materialist or an Aristotleophile, I don't care; but you will never convince me that faith is a sound world-view upon which to build my life. 

 

Consider this, what if what Hindus place their faith in is closer to the truth than what you've placed your faith in?  Would you, then, be so proud at having arrived at conclusions that are completely erroneous because the underlying foundation of faith upon which you built your world-view was fundamentally flawed?

 

I'm beginning to echo some of the same questions others have recently asked.  Why, exactly, are you here?  What on earth could possibly make you think that your religion/philosophy brain-fuck would be of any interest to people on an ex-christian website?  You claim you are not here to evangelize; but, as I've already pointed out to you, your actions would speak otherwise. 

 

If you need help and support for your own deconversion, just be honest and say so; we'll be glad to gather around you.  If not, why not find a religious or philosophical website to share your views on?

 

No, not really. That's not what I was explaining. I was trying to explain why God would be infinite, by working backwards from what we have. I also don't know that God has mass, so I assume that he doesn't. There isn't a logical reason he would. Without mass, there is no time, and therefore no beginning. God would always have existed, because he wouldn't be bound by time. No mass = no time. Don't ask me where he came from when there's no time to use as a reference. 

 I have emboldened and highlighted in red the phrases relevant to this response.  You claim you are here to discuss.  We will begin with that.  I don't know how things work on other websites or forums; but on this website, if you make a groundless assertion, you will get called out to support that assertion.  If, rather than supporting your assertion, you continue to make more unfounded assertions, then we quickly realize that you are, in fact, not here simply for discussion. 

 

Here we have two more assertions from you: that god doesn't have mass, and that god would always have existed.  Do you start to see the same pattern in yourself that the rest of us are seeing in you?  Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, not more extra-ordinary claims.

 

In the post to which I responded above, you made absolutely no attempt to explain why god would be infinite; you simply asserted that he would be because he would have to exist outside of the universe (another assertion, I might add).  For you now to make the claim that you were attempting to explain something that you were simply asserting is not entirely honest.  If you feel we are making fun of you, perhaps a quick review of your actions would be in order.  Groundless assertion and dishonesty will not get you very far on this website.

 

So, are you really here just for discussion?

[Orbit]

I don't see how the discussion can go anywhere, because Wololo's basic premise is an assertion that God exists. Everything that follows from that is tainted by circular reasoning. There is no evidence for God's existence outside the Bible, which makes a self-referential argument.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Let's avoid logical fallacies please. You call it pseudo-science. Prove it.

I know nothing about the Big Bang or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I'm a liberal arts major.  But even I can tell that your extensive word salads are pseudo-science.  And I can tell when someone is attempting to shift the burden of proof.  You are the one making the extraordinary claim that the entity you have faith in actually exists.  You are the one who needs to "prove it".

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

(snip)

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

(snip)

 

Wololo, re: the sentence highlighted in red...

 

How do you know this?

 

You state this as if it were a fact... is it?

 

What kind of singularity are you referring to?

 

What can you tell me about the decay of the Inflaton?

 

When the universe was a quantum-sized entity, which would have been dominant - Quantum effects or Einsteinian relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Hi, I'll go find some proper sources and come up with a deeper explanation since you seem to know more than the some of the jokers here.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No need, W.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62337-how-precisely-would-you-like-that-prediction-to-be-confirmed/#.U2_ssfldVmM

 

Just take a look here and the follow the links.

They'll tell you everything you need to know about where cosmology is at right now.

.

.

.

oh and here another one for you.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/61443-message-from-big-bang-revealed-tomorrow/?hl=bicep#entry933263

 

Enjoy!

 

[MerryG]

 

 

 

Let's avoid logical fallacies please. You call it pseudo-science. Prove it.

I know nothing about the Big Bang or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I'm a liberal arts major.  But even I can tell that your extensive word salads are pseudo-science.  And I can tell when someone is attempting to shift the burden of proof.  You are the one making the extraordinary claim that the entity you have faith in actually exists.  You are the one who needs to "prove it".

 

 

Yep. The burden of proof is on you, Wololo.

 

You have a lot of work ahead of you.

 

For starters: You're assuming a) god exists, b ) god exists outside of time, and c) god has no mass. 

 

Since no one else here agrees with those assumptions, you need to prove those things. First. Before anything else. Otherwise you're merely talking to yourself.

[Wololo]

A couple things, now that I have a small amount of down-time.

 

1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold. Yes, I was born and raised with the idea of the existence of God, so I thought about it, studied, and came across a philosophical framework that fit together. I see that the philosophy explains the way that the world works, and God is a logical extension of that framework. I don't start with "God exists" and then build a framework around it. That's intellectually dishonest. You assume that I have done no reading or studying into philosophy or science.

2) Word salad? When I start talking about things I find interesting, my vocabulary changes. I know more about this sort of thing than other areas, and articulate myself differently.

 

This framework was created as a direct response to nihilism. I'm familiar with other lines of thinking, but most commonly come across nihilism, so that's generally where I start. The reason I bring that up, is because it was not a framework that was intended to prove God from the outset. It was created to deal with the problems of some forms of postmodern thinking. It's a neoplatonic counter argument that also addresses materialism quite well. You're assuming that this whole thing was about God. No, it's more that the framework fits the world, and God is something that creeps up on you as you think about it.

 

In this discussion you're acting as though I'm trying to prove God exists. While that is certainly something I'm arguing, the purpose of this thread was more to give you an idea of the whole picture. The reason I didn't leave Christianity was because through my study of philosophy, God emerged, among other things I discovered.

 

You act as though you're sitting on the logical high ground. I've asked questions already and they haven't been answered. I haven't heard your philosophical perspectives and the basis for them. Are all of you materialists? Are you supports of Nietzsche? Have you read the likes of Foucault, or Descartes, or Derrida. Do you know about deconstruction theory? I don't know any of your philosophical beliefs aside from your atheism, so I'm basically shooting in the dark instead of tailoring my responses to certain types of philosophy. Please come forward with some of that, because I'm curious to know more than just that you don't believe in God.

 

For now, let's throw God out the window and look at the framework. I hope that will make you more comfortable. I would be very happy to lay out my framework for you without God so that you can see how things fit together. In order to do this though, I'd like as many of you as possible to give me an idea of your basic philosophical beliefs so that I can address them too. Let's take God out for a moment and turn this into pure philosophy. He will be coming back to my framework, but I want you to understand that there is actually a basis for this philosophy in the world, and how it all points to God in the end...but he's going to go for now. I do need info from you first though.

 

I don't have time to read those links that were posted and formulate a response, but I will be back to expand on the science (which I also love <3).

 

PS note before I go: I think you're getting the wrong impression because I didn't slow down and flesh things out before God enters the picture. That's why I'd like us to ignore God for now and just look at the philosophy. Are you okay with that?

[sdelsolray]

Wololo:  "My philosophy is correct, better than yours and is my sole evidence for existence of my God and related sky fairies."

 

This one is not quite ready yet for prime time.

[Orbit]

Let's start with this : QUOTE "1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold. Yes, I was born and raised with the idea of the existence of God, so I thought about it, studied, and came across a philosophical framework that fit together. I see that the philosophy explains the way that the world works, and God is a logical extension of that framework. I don't start with "God exists" and then build a framework around it. That's intellectually dishonest. You assume that I have done no reading or studying into philosophy or science." END QUOTE

 

You are taking your inference (unsupported) that God exists as a premise for your assertions. Philosophy won't suffice here, not without evidence to support your assertions. You can't speculate about God's mass without first establishing the existence of God. No epistemology without ontology.

I assume nothing. I observe.

 

I will leave the other points for others to deconstruct.

[Wololo]

Let's start with this : QUOTE "1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold. Yes, I was born and raised with the idea of the existence of God, so I thought about it, studied, and came across a philosophical framework that fit together. I see that the philosophy explains the way that the world works, and God is a logical extension of that framework. I don't start with "God exists" and then build a framework around it. That's intellectually dishonest. You assume that I have done no reading or studying into philosophy or science." END QUOTE

 

You are taking your inference (unsupported) that God exists as a premise for your assertions. Philosophy won't suffice here, not without evidence to support your assertions. You can't speculate about God's mass without first establishing the existence of God. No epistemology without ontology.

I assume nothing. I observe.

 

I will leave the other points for others to deconstruct.

 

Nope, it doesn't prove anything, but I'm also intending to show that you can't support your own philosophical beliefs without faith. We'll get there. No God requires faith, but for different reasons. I'll just be drawing it back to the philosophical foundations the underlie everyone's beliefs. That's why I want to know the philosophy of others here.

[Orbit]

QUOTE Nope, it doesn't prove anything, but I'm also intending to show that you can't support your own philosophical beliefs without faith. We'll get there. No God requires faith, but for different reasons. I'll just be drawing it back to the philosophical foundations the underlie everyone's beliefs. That's why I want to know the philosophy of others here. END QUOTE

 

 

 

 

You want to control the terms of the debate, loading them in your favor. I reject your terms. State your position clearly, logically, and with supporting evidence. Then we can have a meaningful discussion. If you think you're going to teach anyone here a lesson in postmodern epistemology, you're sadly mistaken.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold.

This is all I need to hear to know beyond a doubt that this individual is not interested in educated dialogue.  

 

Essentially, boiled down to its essence this statement means nothing more than: "I believe god exists because I believe god exists".  

 

Nothing more substantive will come from this individual, given that his basic "logic" is nothing more than a perfect little christian circle.  A shame, that, because I really was looking forward to a good fight; and had initially thought Wololo would give us one.  But tipping his hand so soon is never a good idea.  Ya got to know when to hold 'em, son.

[Wololo]

QUOTE Nope, it doesn't prove anything, but I'm also intending to show that you can't support your own philosophical beliefs without faith. We'll get there. No God requires faith, but for different reasons. I'll just be drawing it back to the philosophical foundations the underlie everyone's beliefs. That's why I want to know the philosophy of others here. END QUOTE

 

 

 

 

You want to control the terms of the debate, loading them in your favor. I reject your terms. State your position clearly, logically, and with supporting evidence. Then we can have a meaningful discussion. If you think you're going to teach anyone here a lesson in postmodern epistemology, you're sadly mistaken.

I reject your response. Voltaire - "Define your terms." If you won't share your own philosophy, I cannot share mine properly. I need to know what the opposition holds to. I cannot frame my beliefs for you without knowing what your own stance is and how you think.

 

 

 

 

1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold.

This is all I need to hear to know beyond a doubt that this individual is not interested in educated dialogue.  

 

Essentially, boiled down to its essence this statement means nothing more than: "I believe god exists because I believe god exists".  

 

Nothing more substantive will come from this individual, given that his basic "logic" is nothing more than a perfect little christian circle.  A shame, that, because I really was looking forward to a good fight; and had initially thought Wololo would give us one.  But tipping his hand so soon is never a good idea.  Ya got to know when to hold 'em, son.

 

 

Define your terms and we can continue. I want to know your philosophy and then I will lay mine out. God can come afterward, but in order to discuss philosophy with you, I have to know where you stand.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Nope, it doesn't prove anything, but I'm also intending to show that you can't support your own philosophical beliefs without faith. We'll get there. No God requires faith, but for different reasons. I'll just be drawing it back to the philosophical foundations the underlie everyone's beliefs. That's why I want to know the philosophy of others here.

Another unsupported assertion.  Prove to me that I hold philosophical beliefs.  Demonstrate how my philosophical beliefs require faith.  We aren't going to get anywhere because the bottom line is I hold no philosophical beliefs.  My consciousness exists; everything else is just window-dressing.  That is the totality of my philosophy, son; and I need nothing else to be content with this existence.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold.

This is all I need to hear to know beyond a doubt that this individual is not interested in educated dialogue.  

 

Essentially, boiled down to its essence this statement means nothing more than: "I believe god exists because I believe god exists".  

 

Nothing more substantive will come from this individual, given that his basic "logic" is nothing more than a perfect little christian circle.  A shame, that, because I really was looking forward to a good fight; and had initially thought Wololo would give us one.  But tipping his hand so soon is never a good idea.  Ya got to know when to hold 'em, son.

 

 

Define your terms and we can continue. I want to know your philosophy and then I will lay mine out. God can come afterward, but in order to discuss philosophy with you, I have to know where you stand.

 

See above post.

[Wololo]

 

Nope, it doesn't prove anything, but I'm also intending to show that you can't support your own philosophical beliefs without faith. We'll get there. No God requires faith, but for different reasons. I'll just be drawing it back to the philosophical foundations the underlie everyone's beliefs. That's why I want to know the philosophy of others here.

Another unsupported assertion.  Prove to me that I hold philosophical beliefs.  Demonstrate how my philosophical beliefs require faith.  We aren't going to get anywhere because the bottom line is I hold no philosophical beliefs.  My consciousness exists; everything else is just window-dressing.  That is the totality of my philosophy, son; and I need nothing else to be content with this existence.

 

So you have presented your philosophy. You exist. Thank you. I will be back...

[Orbit]

He'll be back after he Googles Descartes. Sorry, had to be said.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Nope, it doesn't prove anything, but I'm also intending to show that you can't support your own philosophical beliefs without faith. We'll get there. No God requires faith, but for different reasons. I'll just be drawing it back to the philosophical foundations the underlie everyone's beliefs. That's why I want to know the philosophy of others here.

Another unsupported assertion.  Prove to me that I hold philosophical beliefs.  Demonstrate how my philosophical beliefs require faith.  We aren't going to get anywhere because the bottom line is I hold no philosophical beliefs.  My consciousness exists; everything else is just window-dressing.  That is the totality of my philosophy, son; and I need nothing else to be content with this existence.

 

So you have presented your philosophy. You exist. Thank you. I will be back...

 

A good dialogue is supported by the listening and comprehension skills of the participants.  I did not ever claim that I existed; I claimed that my consciousness exists.  How do you expect to hold a meaningful dialogue if you can't even comprehend the basic tenants of a statement?  There is a huge fundamental difference between the claim "I exist" and the claim "My consciousness exists"; do you not understand this?  Or did you simply read into my statement what you wanted to be there in order to formulate a reply that seemed to rebut something I never said?  Weren't you just accusing me earlier today of formulating a strawman?  Listen, and think, before you speak.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

He'll be back after he Googles Descartes. Sorry, had to be said.

Yeah, he's looking at cogito ergo sum right now.  Perhaps for the first time in his life.  I'm proud to have made a difference.  

[Ravenstar]

Damn Orbit, you beat me to it!!!

 

 

 

 

Philosophy 101 is getting a bit old.  

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

1) This is not a tautology. I'm inferring that God exists based on the philosophical framework that I hold.

This is all I need to hear to know beyond a doubt that this individual is not interested in educated dialogue.  

 

Essentially, boiled down to its essence this statement means nothing more than: "I believe god exists because I believe god exists".  

 

Nothing more substantive will come from this individual, given that his basic "logic" is nothing more than a perfect little christian circle.  A shame, that, because I really was looking forward to a good fight; and had initially thought Wololo would give us one.  But tipping his hand so soon is never a good idea.  Ya got to know when to hold 'em, son.

 

I agree.  This one has now demonstrated that he is basically full of himself.  More accurately, he is mostly full of shit.

[Orbit]

I think he thinks that we don't have religion, so we *must* have a philosophy that is as dogmatic as a religion is to defend. I don't have a coherent philosophy to defend, or even an incoherent one. Philosophy is a tool for understanding, not a dogma to defend.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

The reason I didn't leave Christianity was because through my study of philosophy, God emerged, among other things I discovered.

 

 

Humans are pattern-seeking individuals.  We see what we want to see.  Exposure to religious ideas in childhood means we are likely to fall back on what we were taught in childhood, unless we allow ourselves to fully question our assumptions.
 

I'm curious to know more than just that you don't believe in God.

 

 

 

There isn't much more to know about me that would be relevant for you at this point.

 

PS note before I go: I think you're getting the wrong impression because I didn't slow down and flesh things out before God enters the picture. That's why I'd like us to ignore God for now and just look at the philosophy. Are you okay with that?

 

 

No.  Reading someone's ideas on philosophy is extremely unlikely to cause a god concept to emerge for me like it did for you.  I believed in a god for the better part of 45 years and have heard every argument for its supposed existence.  Nothing has convinced me yet.

[Wololo]

Let's refrain from ad hominem. We all know it's not logical and it doesn't add to the discussion. Stop acting like silly teenagers.

 

Yes, you should be quite familiar with Descartes if you hold to that belief, and if you are, you understand that the rational thinking that is occurring is consistent with itself meaning that there is indeed an "I". The "I" is the consciousness that exists and that thinks. If all that you know exists is this consciousness, then that consciousness would sum up your identity. You would be your consciousness. The very fact that the consciousness recognizes its own existence, means that it recognizes a 'self'. Do you disagree with that? Please elaborate, as I am comfortable going further.

 

Keep going as though I don't know anything about philosophy or science. Enjoy your high horse.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Let's refrain from ad hominem. We all know it's not logical and it doesn't add to the discussion. Stop acting like silly teenagers.

 

 

I laughed out loud when I read this.  You're getting desperate now.

[Wololo]

 

Let's refrain from ad hominem. We all know it's not logical and it doesn't add to the discussion. Stop acting like silly teenagers.

 

 

I laughed out loud when I read this.  You're getting desperate now.

 

 

Do you know what ad hominem is? If you're resorting to jokes and mockery about your opponent, you're not being logical. It's immature. The "go Google Descartes" comments are unnecessary. The arrogance here is clouding your minds. You personally said you don't understand the science, and then proceeded to form an opinion about how I was talking pseudo-science. Don't talk about things you've said you don't know about.