1) You are saying something which you cannot know for a fact, even if you are correct.
2) You are saying you are sorry for something which you cannot know and which you are not responsible for.
This disqualifies you from being intelligent.
Actually the laws of physics of our universe disqualify anything from being omniscient or omnipotent when acting in our universe
So even if there was some superpower outside of our universe if it tried to do anything or know anything about our universe it would not have superpowers
The uncertainty principle in physics, and the idea of waste heat in physics also, make it impossible to act with any certainty or to know the future or the consequences of any action with certainty
We can also say what is overwhelmingly likely based on the the overwhelming evidence we have learned about our place in the universe and the realities that we face
I mean you can explain some evil as free will ... but you can't explain natural evils and why there are natural disasters and hurricanes and tornadoes and ...why kids get terrible diseases and... why there is no clear message or instructions from any supernatural being if it really cared and loved us
1) You are saying something which you cannot know for a fact, even if you are correct.
2) You are saying you are sorry for something which you cannot know and which you are not responsible for.
This disqualifies you from being intelligent.
Actually the laws of physics of our universe disqualify anything from being omniscient or omnipotent when acting in our universe
So even if there was some superpower outside of our universe if it tried to do anything or know anything about our universe it would not have superpowers
The uncertainty principle in physics, and the idea of waste heat in physics also, make it impossible to act with any certainty or to know the future or the consequences of any action with certainty
We can also say what is overwhelmingly likely based on the the overwhelming evidence we have learned about our place in the universe and the realities that we face
I mean you can explain some evil as free will ... but you can't explain natural evils and why there are natural disasters and hurricanes and tornadoes and ...why kids get terrible diseases and... why there is no clear message or instructions from any supernatural being if it really cared and loved us
You should revisit some of the earlier discussions. You cannot apply how we interpret the universe (through various laws of physics) to a God as described in the Bible.
As for a clear message or instructions: there is The Bible that explains “it”.
1) "There could be a creator." Well, none of us knows *exactly* what happened at The Beginning of Everything--because none of us was there!--so who knows, maybe a "deity" was involved. And? So? What you, and many other believers, seem to think is not just a) that there *was* a being that got everything started, but b) that there *is* one--oh, and the same one!--NOW: occasionally breaking the laws of physics (so as to work miracles), meting out rewards and punishments, and requiring love, worship, and obedience. Well, b does not automatically follow from a. They are separate propositions and need to be proved separately.
2) "Something can't be created from nothing." This is simply false. There are subatomic particles that exist, then don't, then do, then don't, many times per second, and this is demonstrated in labs every day. They come out of nothing.
Beyond that, cosmologists have shown that "nothing" is an unstable state and that some kind of "something" was essentially inevitable.
3) "Before there was nothing." Time is a dimension of our universe, just as height and width and depth are, and it is meaningless--literally without meaning--to speak of, or suggest, a time "before" the universe, just as it would be to speak of something "outside" the universe.
4) Most people of faith are *not* idiots. While I have seen a few surveys that suggest the average IQ of nonbelievers is *slightly* higher than that of believers, I consider that to be meaningless because the intelligence of people within each group varies so widely.
The simple fact is that people don't get to *choose* their beliefs. If a proposition meets your standards for believability--and those seem to be mostly or wholly unconscious--you won't *choose* to believe that proposition; it will *compel* your belief. Similarly, to the extent that the proposition doesn't satisfy those standards, your believing it will be impossible (though of course you might talk or act as though you believe it). [Can a person's beliefs change? Sure. S/he might be presented with a new proposition, or his/her standards for believability could change. But no person can wake up in the morning and say, "Hey, ya know what, today Imma start believing X" or "stop believing Y." Human brains don't work that way.]
So I don't attempt to change people's beliefs. So long as they don't resort to force, or the threat of force, to impose their beliefs on others, I'm fine with it. Live and let live.
I appreciate your thoughtful post. But everything, all matter, had to originate somewhere. I'd matter can't be created or destroyed, then the big bang, without a creator, has some flaws. All the matter in the universe was then present before the big bang, in whatever form. And then it got super hot and expanded. So I don't think all the matter in the universe simply created itself. Also, there are quite a few scientist who dispute the entire concept of the Big Bang, and simply insist that the origins of the universe remain unknown. These are not Christian Scientist. I strongly suggest you do opposition research on this.
Needless to say, it's not crazy or even far fetched to believe the process could be guided by a higher being. There isn't concrete proof, but there also isn't any kind of concrete proof that the universe wasn't created by a deity. You can borrow standards from certain faiths and apply those standards to that theology and poke holes in the theology, but ultimately nobody truly knows. But I think it takes a lot of faith to think that all matter in the universe created itself. Probably as much faith as it takes to believe in a deity.
Ok, so everything if everything had to originate from somewhere, then where did the creator come from?
I appreciate your thoughtful post. But everything, all matter, had to originate somewhere. I'd matter can't be created or destroyed, then the big bang, without a creator, has some flaws. All the matter in the universe was then present before the big bang, in whatever form. And then it got super hot and expanded. So I don't think all the matter in the universe simply created itself. Also, there are quite a few scientist who dispute the entire concept of the Big Bang, and simply insist that the origins of the universe remain unknown. These are not Christian Scientist. I strongly suggest you do opposition research on this.
Needless to say, it's not crazy or even far fetched to believe the process could be guided by a higher being. There isn't concrete proof, but there also isn't any kind of concrete proof that the universe wasn't created by a deity. You can borrow standards from certain faiths and apply those standards to that theology and poke holes in the theology, but ultimately nobody truly knows. But I think it takes a lot of faith to think that all matter in the universe created itself. Probably as much faith as it takes to believe in a deity.
Ok, so everything if everything had to originate from somewhere, then where did the creator come from?
Ok, you asked. Let's see if you have an open mind and can spend 4 minutes of your life to watch this? I know you'll dismiss whatever anyone says on the subject, that much is obvious. But...just watch it. Thanks
PURCHASE MY BOOK HERE:✔️Walking By Faith On Purpose (Law of attraction from a biblical perspective): http://amzn.to/2BAHExqHey Guys👋🏾If you know of any at...
I am with Albert Camus, who was an 'apatheist', which is basically someone who is unwilling to grant entire question of a deity any importance whatsoever. I do not consider the question of "god" relevant to the human predicament. Either we will arrive at a reasonable way of treating each other and our home on Earth, or we will not. The final result is relevant to humans alone. Debates about various forms of deity--or lack thereof--is really a way of eliding matters of power and and culture, a way to talk about organizing society that claims authority externally, a kind of red herring. It is useful to many people, for a variety of reasons (and all too often selfish reasons, thought by no means always), to claim the authority of a deity or the certain non-existence of one. But all the "god talk" and "no god talk" is really a way to brand a magical imprimatur on the views of one group, usually over one deemed to be less powerful and less "chosen", over another. It would be far more honest to say "I believe this," even if it means your tribe is going to take what it needs, and to hell with the others. Of course there is an alternative, sharing, but that takes real commitment, and not everyone really wants to share.
I think this is kind of a distant, cynical outlook. I think many people believe in God because they believe in God- not for some selfish motive to construct society around religion in a way that serves him. Most people aren’t cult leaders. And in regards to Christianity, many people genuinely believe Christ fulfills their life and gives them joy. So naturally, they want other people to expierence that. Some people abuse religion, most don’t. Whether God is real or not, you can debate, but when people talk about religious in these cold, callous terms, they demonstrate they really don’t understand their fellow humans.
Unfortunately it really doesn't matter if most people are not cult leaders. The structure of society is such that religion and our economic system do their work in creating the hierarchy without reference to individual belief. I feel I understand those who have deep religious beliefs. About half of my closest friends are believers. I respect them as good people. I also think they are naive in certain respects, not only because of their religious beliefs, but also because they think our political structure (speaking here about the USA) can be withstand what is about to happen to it.
The argument should first occur between the Muslims/Hindu/Christians. Once a victor has emerged, the agnostics can debate the religious. Then the atheists can debate the winner of that one.
Of course, at the end of the day these seemingly unique identifiers (your religion, your partner, etc) are less likely to be the result of your own or some other's choice than they are the zip code you grew up in. To assign some higher narrative to your life (you were chosen to be here, and not Hindu or starving in Africa) is a disgusting arrogance of the highest sort.
To assign some higher narrative to your life (you were chosen to be here, and not Hindu or starving in Africa) is a disgusting arrogance of the highest sort.
I am with Albert Camus, who was an 'apatheist', which is basically someone who is unwilling to grant entire question of a deity any importance whatsoever. I do not consider the question of "god" relevant to the human predicament. Either we will arrive at a reasonable way of treating each other and our home on Earth, or we will not. The final result is relevant to humans alone. Debates about various forms of deity--or lack thereof--is really a way of eliding matters of power and and culture, a way to talk about organizing society that claims authority externally, a kind of red herring. It is useful to many people, for a variety of reasons (and all too often selfish reasons, thought by no means always), to claim the authority of a deity or the certain non-existence of one. But all the "god talk" and "no god talk" is really a way to brand a magical imprimatur on the views of one group, usually over one deemed to be less powerful and less "chosen", over another. It would be far more honest to say "I believe this," even if it means your tribe is going to take what it needs, and to hell with the others. Of course there is an alternative, sharing, but that takes real commitment, and not everyone really wants to share.
I think this is kind of a distant, cynical outlook. I think many people believe in God because they believe in God- not for some selfish motive to construct society around religion in a way that serves him. Most people aren’t cult leaders. And in regards to Christianity, many people genuinely believe Christ fulfills their life and gives them joy. So naturally, they want other people to expierence that. Some people abuse religion, most don’t. Whether God is real or not, you can debate, but when people talk about religious in these cold, callous terms, they demonstrate they really don’t understand their fellow humans.
I should also add that most people who believe in a deity also assent to the moral and political role their religion plays and has played in society. They may make statements that harmonize with your argument about a lack of selfish motives, but either directly or indirectly believers participate in creating a moral and political reality that is a powerful force in human society. The willingness to retreat into the "personal" and ignore the larger reality is the most callow aspect of religious belief. It's becomes the morality version of money laundering.
With all of this said, the Pope is the Antichrist.
The former Pope, Pope Ratzinger, was a Nazi. Once, when he was giving a speech at a WWII German soldier cemetery, he blamed WII on the Allies.
Rather, Joseph Ratzinger was conscripted as a teenager into the military when Hitler led Germany. That no more made him a Nazi than my father's being drafted into the Korean War under Democrat President Harry Truman made my father a Democrat. Ratzinger's family, further, were very anti-Nazi.
Have you a credible reference for your assertion that Ratzinger blamed WII {sic} on the Allies?
With all of this said, the Pope is the Antichrist.
Well if that doesn't convince everyone, what will?
Many informed faithful Catholics have a rather dim view of Pope Francis. I have a much dimmer view of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits - the order to which Francis belongs, and feel that many of its priests in recent decades have been traitorous to Catholicism.
But I respect the Office of the Papacy. Christians have been split into three broad groups for the last half-millennium: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. (By my lights, the Anglicans (Episcopalians here in the USA), fit into Protestantism because they do not recognize the Bishop of Rome's primacy - they broke with King Henry VIII from Catholicism, though they often consider themselves intermediate between Catholicism and Protestantism). Yet the majority of Christians do recognize the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as having a special role. While the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not see eye-to-eye on how this role is exercised, at least the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge a special role of the Pope as instituted by Jesus Christ. So the two most ancient communities, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, recognize the pope. Protestantism denies this belief, however, but seems to have not so much no pope as it has thousands of self-appointed super popes who reverse the previous doctrines of their communities with ease (for example, the prohibition against artificial contraception, of which no Christian community I am aware of approved until the Anglicans did so in 1930 at their decennial Lambeth Conference).
Ok, so everything if everything had to originate from somewhere, then where did the creator come from?
Ok, you asked. Let's see if you have an open mind and can spend 4 minutes of your life to watch this? I know you'll dismiss whatever anyone says on the subject, that much is obvious. But...just watch it. Thanks
Watched it. My tl;dr: He states that god is not affected by time/space/matter, therefore god is not limited by the physical world, and exists in a spiritual non-physical world. He cites that the spiritual world exists based on emotions, thoughts, ideas, and how those emotions can manifest into things in the physical worlds. Therefore the spiritual world exists and god was able to create a physical world from the spiritual world.
This treads dangerously close to saying that god is a physical manifestation of our minds, that is to say, made up. If god can create a physical world from a spiritual world, that same logic holds that a human emotion (cited by the speaker as spiritual) can manifest into a physical world construct of god, or religion.
He closes by saying that his tiny human brain is too under-powered to understand a being capable of creating everything in an instant. This is not helpful in any way. There are plenty of things (real, like the three-body problem, or imagined, like time travel) that human brains are too under-powered to comprehend. Our ability to understand a thing does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a thing.
Ok, you asked. Let's see if you have an open mind and can spend 4 minutes of your life to watch this? I know you'll dismiss whatever anyone says on the subject, that much is obvious. But...just watch it. Thanks
Well, I lasted three minutes. (I'm already pretty familiar with this felon's arguments on a variety of subjects and didn't need to go farther.) Let me repeat something I posted earlier: Now, as to the question of what happened When Everything Began: We can say that a) some kind of being started the universe, or b) it just started on its own. Either one, of course, is contrary to our human experience; but we know from physics, and especially from quantum mechanics, that human-scale experience and intuitions are not adequate to describe or really understand the very large, the very small, or the very energetic. So we're left to think that a "Creator" was somehow "just there," or else that the universe was somehow "just there." Because I encounter the universe every instant of my existence, and I encounter this "Creator"--well, never, I tend to favor option b.
The one who makes the claim . . . has the burden of proof for supporting the claim.
Fine, but literally in the post above this one I'm quoting, you said: "God is real, Jesus is real and the pope . . . ."
So you're making a positive assertion. You're not saying "I *believe* that God is real"--which no one can easily argue against--you're making a flat statement, a claim. Okay, support it.
Fine, but literally in the post above this one I'm quoting, you said: "God is real, Jesus is real and the pope . . . ."
So you're making a positive assertion. You're not saying "I *believe* that God is real"--which no one can easily argue against--you're making a flat statement, a claim. Okay, support it.
Still waiting here...
Hey mate! Let’s go back to presuppositions here. My statement about “God is real, Jesus is real…” was to a Catholic. Our presuppositions are similar. My comment was literally quoting what he said back to him. Basically, that was a different conversation with a different person who shared similar beliefs. Now when it comes to a discussion with an atheist, I might be less assertive. Now, with you I’d make the classic argument of: well there’s a creation, therefore there is a creator. Or my least favorite, the whole moral presuppositions. Personally, I don’t like arguing for the existence of God. It’s not my strong suit, and like you said earlier people don’t get to *choose* what they believe in.
With all of this said, the Pope is the Antichrist.
Well if that doesn't convince everyone, what will?
Many informed faithful Catholics have a rather dim view of Pope Francis. I have a much dimmer view of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits - the order to which Francis belongs, and feel that many of its priests in recent decades have been traitorous to Catholicism.
But I respect the Office of the Papacy. Christians have been split into three broad groups for the last half-millennium: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. (By my lights, the Anglicans (Episcopalians here in the USA), fit into Protestantism because they do not recognize the Bishop of Rome's primacy - they broke with King Henry VIII from Catholicism, though they often consider themselves intermediate between Catholicism and Protestantism). Yet the majority of Christians do recognize the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as having a special role. While the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not see eye-to-eye on how this role is exercised, at least the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge a special role of the Pope as instituted by Jesus Christ. So the two most ancient communities, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, recognize the pope. Protestantism denies this belief, however, but seems to have not so much no pope as it has thousands of self-appointed super popes who reverse the previous doctrines of their communities with ease (for example, the prohibition against artificial contraception, of which no Christian community I am aware of approved until the Anglicans did so in 1930 at their decennial Lambeth Conference).
I should’ve been more clear, the office of the pope/papacy is the antichrist, not just Pope Francis. the major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope. There is no biblical support for it, only the vain tradition that Catholics and EOs hold onto. now Protestantism is not perfect, and there is more wrong with them than most Catholics. You can’t just open a Catholic Church and wave a LGBTQIA+ flag, unlike “Protestants”. I mean, Catholics have the Pope, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Protestants have Furtick, Todd White and other heretics. which is why I stick to classic reformed theology.
Props to you Galen for using your platform to preach the Gospel! It's more important now than ever before given the state of our country and world. A true role model for all to follow!
Well if that doesn't convince everyone, what will?
Many informed faithful Catholics have a rather dim view of Pope Francis. I have a much dimmer view of the Society of Jesus - the Jesuits - the order to which Francis belongs, and feel that many of its priests in recent decades have been traitorous to Catholicism.
But I respect the Office of the Papacy. Christians have been split into three broad groups for the last half-millennium: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. (By my lights, the Anglicans (Episcopalians here in the USA), fit into Protestantism because they do not recognize the Bishop of Rome's primacy - they broke with King Henry VIII from Catholicism, though they often consider themselves intermediate between Catholicism and Protestantism). Yet the majority of Christians do recognize the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as having a special role. While the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not see eye-to-eye on how this role is exercised, at least the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge a special role of the Pope as instituted by Jesus Christ. So the two most ancient communities, the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, recognize the pope. Protestantism denies this belief, however, but seems to have not so much no pope as it has thousands of self-appointed super popes who reverse the previous doctrines of their communities with ease (for example, the prohibition against artificial contraception, of which no Christian community I am aware of approved until the Anglicans did so in 1930 at their decennial Lambeth Conference).
I should’ve been more clear, the office of the pope/papacy is the antichrist, not just Pope Francis. the major error you made here is stating that the pope was instituted by the pope. There is no biblical support for it, only the vain tradition that Catholics and EOs hold onto. now Protestantism is not perfect, and there is more wrong with them than most Catholics. You can’t just open a Catholic Church and wave a LGBTQIA+ flag, unlike “Protestants”. I mean, Catholics have the Pope, Joe Biden and Pelosi. Protestants have Furtick, Todd White and other heretics. which is why I stick to classic reformed theology.
The pope isn't necessarily the anti-christ, depending on how you define it. The anti-christ is really just someone in the church who denies Christ. Don't base it at all on the fictional left behind series. Remember, Anti-Christ isn't mentioned anywhere in Revelations. The Beast is mentioned, but not the Anti-Christ.