|
litany of gulps posted:If they lived the decent life and loved their neighbor, but ate a bite of human flesh, that's a dealbreaker? Why? Yes the communion is an exception to that (transubstantiation or symbolic ) Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 23, 2016 |
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I will give you an example of a possibility So if I were lets say a Buddist living in a first world country, I'd be barred from Heaven regardless of how much I loved my neighbor or how many good works I performed? Maybe it would help if I stopped dancing around the point. You seem hesitant to just come out and say "No, you can't get into Heaven until and unless you accept Jesus as your savior". You seem to believe it though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:The fact that you were baptized was not conclusive evidence that you were going to heaven according to the New Testament. No, obviously not, right? quote:You cannot justify yourself, although you can hold on to the promises that are included in the covenant. Christ makes clear that you have to actually belong to him and not be a Christian in name only, and thats up to Him to decide (judgment). I don't think justification is needed, so that's fine? I am the author of my own results, because of the freedom you mention later on. While we are all subject to causes and conditions (what the existentialists call facticity) we do have this so-called free will that allows us to choose what we do, and we can choose virtue and should. But at the end of the day, there's no need for an arbiter. The causes of suffering inexorably lead to the results of suffering - all composite things are impermanent, and all that are born will die. Whatever begins must, inexorably, come to an end. This is also why the issue of god creating and being mutable and changeable is problematic - it implies god must end, which I think you do not agree with. quote:Who are you to decide that all sentient beings should go to heaven? I don't want sentient beings to go to heaven, I want sentient beings to be liberated from suffering. I have not looked at them all and decided they should be based on an arbitrary judgment or weighing of their actions as if on some scale, but I know that ultimately, every sentient being wants to be happy, and they should all have that happiness. Even god wants to be happy, or he wouldn't take such extreme measures to ensure people follow his will (like drowning the entire planet). So I guess a better question is, why shouldn't all sentient beings, born as they are through ignorance and driven only to be happy, attain that happiness ultimately? quote:That is beside the fact that the true hope of the Christian is in the resurrection, not the intermediate state or heaven. Which again seems like a silly hope. "All this world, but it'll be nice instead." An unfortunate state of affairs indeed if that's the best god can offer. quote:By having a covenant in place He gives you the option to opt out of this (Calvinist obviously disagree on ability to opt out or opt in but don't care about that right now ) So, basically if you want be in a relationship with God, then He makes a clear and understandable way present that grandma can believe in too. If you don't, then you don't have to believe in Him. He leaves the decision up to you. I don't think Him giving you the option to opt out is being a jerk. The opportunity to opt out is nice, but it doesn't seem compassionate. To me, it seems like not creating a lake of fire to throw people into would be a kinder, more understanding thing. God purportedly knows the minds of men, and knows that they suffer, so with that perfect understanding of the motivations of sentient beings, it seems horrifically cruel to go "welp, that's just the way it is, see you in hell sucka." It seems unconscionably cruel to sit in judgment of others, letting alone the idea that in fact good and evil themselves are simply mental fabrications, and if Christ is going to judge people based on his opinions of good and evil, that in itself is unjust, which brings us back to Marcus Aurelius, "if there are gods and they are unjust, you should not want to follow them."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:So if I were lets say a Buddist living in a first world country, I'd be barred from Heaven regardless of how much I loved my neighbor or how many good works I performed? Well if you practiced Buddhism what if you went where your deity appoints you and that did not correlate to heaven that Yahweh lives in? You believed in that deity and you would go to be with that deity wherever that may be. However the caveat would be the capability of that deity who was not sovereign and did not create the universe to give you satisfaction in the afterlife. But you made the decision living in a first world country to choose that path instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, knowing that the deity you believe in was not creator sovereign God. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If they lived the decent life and loved their neighbor, but ate a bite of human flesh, that's a dealbreaker? Why? Catholics devour the accident of bread with the substance of flesh, and the accident of wine with the substance of blood, it's kind of different I guess in that the prohibition here is against consuming the accident of flesh and blood. But then, people meat and animal meat is just meat, so I mean, again, if this is divine command, it's maybe arbitrary. I mean, keeping kosher generally involves not eating things that can give you trichinosis or so on, so I can see that as god just watching out for his peeps, and eating people can give you kuru, so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well if you practiced Buddism what if you went where your deity appoints you and that did not correlate to heaven that Yahweh lives in? You believed in that deity and you would go to be with that deity wherever that may be. Wait what? You believe there is more than one deity? Or that whatever deity a person believes in somehow exists to them? I have to admit I'm baffled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well if you practiced Buddism what if you went where your deity appoints you and that did not correlate to heaven that Yahweh lives in? You believed in that deity and you would go to be with that deity wherever that may be. Buddhism doesn't have a deity who appoints you to go places, we believe that we are reborn based on causes and conditions created by our actions and we generally aim to escape from the cyclic existence in this world of suffering. We do this by not creating those causes and conditions, which stem from ignorance, attachment, and aversion. Some Buddhists who practice the Mahayana further prefer not to simply liberate themselves but strive for the liberation of all sentient beings from this suffering existence, and so make vows to continue to take rebirths in this samsara for the benefit of sentient beings. Still though it's definitely possible to be reborn as a god or demigod or a spirit with a very long lifespan in a non-physical place, but that's actually not such a good thing, because gods generally don't have all that much suffering and don't recognize any reason to escape from suffering until they near the ends of their lives. Humans are very fortunate because we can easily see the state of the world and how it is full of suffering, and then more importantly we can do something about it. But this of course oversimplifies a lot and is again better suited for the Buddhism thread I linked earlier if you're interested in this discussion. Edit: It's worth clarifying maybe so you can see where I'm coming from with the thrust of my points is that you're mentioning that only your god can provide any kind of salvation, but from my point of view the Christian god is similarly bonded by attachment and aversion, has desires, wants, preferences, and so on, and so clearly is not transcendent beyond this world, but rather very much integrated with it. As a result, god might have a sick pad for bringing the reborn spirits of his followers to for a super dope party, but all of that is still subject to impermanence and suffering in its various forms. There is still suffering in heaven, and so what are the advantages? Look at all the questions out there about for example if my pets go to heaven, or what happens if my relatives don't go to heaven, and so on. People still have their strongly held attachments, but there's a possibility that god will go "eh, you did okay, welcome my son. Your wife? Nah, she's right out, she didn't really accept me in her heart." How could you be happy in that event? "You did pretty good, you're certainly welcome here, but your mother, she wasn't Christian enough, sorry, she has to burn in a lake of fire. She'll be really miserable for eternity. But kick back, have a daquiri, I've gotta get through another 3 billion judgments before we can head back down to the overpopulated planet." Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Wait what? You believe there is more than one deity? Or that whatever deity a person believes in somehow exists to them? I have to admit I'm baffled. I edited my post above, the caveat included that whatever you would call a "deity" may exist yes in some sense, but not have the capabilities of bringing you satisfaction in the afterlife that heaven affords. Like satan worshipers will go to be with Satan like they want to , but will have to accept all that goes along with that decision. Now I wont sit here and call other peoples deities Satan, but they each would have their own problems to affording you salvation
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:I edited my post above, the caveat included that whatever you would call a "deity" may exist yes in some sense, but not have the capabilities of bringing you satisfaction in the afterlife that heaven affords. Like satan worshipers will go to be with Satan like they want to , but will have to accept all that goes along with that decision. Now I wont sit here and call other peoples deities Satan, but they each would have their own problems to affording you salvation Even so, I find it very interesting that you believe multiple gods or at least god-like beings exist. If you believe that, what exactly led you to your decision that yours is the correct one? "Correct", as in the One True God who created the universe. Also, what determines whether or not a particular deity exists? Did all those people who worshipped the golden calf go somewhere to be with a golden calf after they died? Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If they lived the decent life and loved their neighbor, but ate a bite of human flesh, that's a dealbreaker? Why? It's a reference to the Noahide Covenant. OP were you an orthodox Jew before your conversion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Ok were talking about the issue of other deities existence, and that obviously is highly speculative. I simply do not have the access to answer that kind of stuff. Ill use the golden calf as an example, lets say you trust Aaron and the Israelites masterpiece they made with that thing. It was destroyed and ended badly. It is within your rights to trust in molten calfs. But that thing was made by human hands and had no power to be your advocate on your judgment day. You would have been better off with the court appointed attorney than that thing. That would cover the class of "inanimate idols" at least.
Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Ok were talking about the issue of other deities existence, and that obviously is highly speculative I simply do not have the epistemological access to answer that kind of stuff. Ill use the golden calf as an example, lets say you trust Aaron and the Israelites masterpiece they made with that thing. It was destroyed and ended badly. It is within your rights to trust in molten calfs. But that thing was made by human hands and had no power to be your advocate on your judgment day. You would have been better off with the court appointed attorney than that thing. That would cover the class of "inanimate idols" at least. Why do you consider the existence of other deities speculative, but the existence of yours to be definitive? Is it just an internal feeling you have or did some specific experience lead you to that conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Why do you consider the existence of other deities speculative, but the existence of yours to be definitive? Is it just an internal feeling you have or did some specific experience lead you to that conclusion? Here is where arguments for God's existence can be used as external evidence. I will use one of the more common examples this being the contingency argument, there are many others. keep in mind why this explantion works for the Christian God and not the other ones? Because it has to do with creator God (like I said before, God is creator and sovereign sustainer ) 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. The universe has an explanation of its existence. 5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. Why God is the explanation of the universe's existence can be described as the possibility of it either being a personal or physical cause. If it is just a series of physical causes then that leads to an infinite regress, however it does not seem that the ultimate creative cause of all matter in the universe is inanimate given how things are created in the world we live in, therefore the personal cause seems a better fit. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Here is where arguments for God's existence can be used as external evidence. I will use one of the more common examples this being the contingency argument, there are many others. So then, you're admitting that God's existence is predicated on the universe, and furthermore, that God has an explanation or reason for his existence? I mean, this argument is valid, but not necessarily sound. You have arbitrarily defined God as 2, when 2 in fact could be anything or nothing at all. If you use this logical form to deduce that the universe must exist based on a cause, you have to abandon the argument that god exists causelessly, because if you postulate god exists, then from (1) you have to accept that God exists based on a cause. If God doesn't exist based on a cause or explanation, then (1) is false, and the argument fails. Edit i.e., 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. 6. God exists (from 5) :. God has an explanation of his existence. You could argue that God is himself the cause of his own existence, but then you no longer need 2, and again the argument fails. We could also refine certain parts of the argument - for example, I would require that causes need not be singular, and that "the universe" as a set can be broken up and demonstrated to exist as resultant from its own constituent parts. I might also say that the Universe in the present exists as a result of the Universe in the past, and so on. I'd add that the Universe, being changeable, cannot come from something unchangeable, because that's impossible (a creator cannot be unaffected by a creation, because they change by virtue of becoming the creator of that thing, just like you cannot have a man who does not become a father when they have a child - the birth of the child makes the man a father). And I would further say that an infinite regress is probably favorable to a self-defeating argument of a Prime Mover. I mean if we want to get into formal logic in this sense it's a dangerous road to go down. Especially because again, the original formulations of these arguments were designed to prove god where the assumption of god already exists. In this case, that assumption can't really be made - we can call the thing in "2" whatever we want. Brahma, or whatever. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Let me add to what I said earlier, about 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence God is necessarily self existent , the explanation of His existence is that He has always existed (since in the beginning He created the heavens and the earth, he existed before time as we know it began) I want to combine what I said about the contingency argument with the Kalaam argument 1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. 2 The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: 3 The universe has a cause of its existence. 4 If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. 5 God exists. I attempt here to categorize things that acutally have causes of existence (which is more than an explanation of existence) from the things that are self existent , that being God. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
None of that has much to do with what I was asking though. What makes you so sure that it was your God that created the universe, and not a different one? You already acknowledge that other deities exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:None of that has much to do with what I was asking though. What makes you so sure that it was your God that created the universe, and not a different one? You already acknowledge that other deities exist. To expand a little, your argument jumps from "The universe has a cause of its existence" to "that cause must be the Christian God as described in the Holy Bible." This is what Paramemetic meant when he said your argument is valid but not sound: you make an assumption (that the cause is specifically your god) that does not follow from the premise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Let me add to what I said earlier, about This is so close to the watchmaker argument it hurts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:None of that has much to do with what I was asking though. What makes you so sure that it was your God that created the universe, and not a different one? You already acknowledge that other deities exist. Empirical evidence beyond the creation itself is admittedly a tough subject, but i have heard it explained that God did not intend for us to treat Him as some kind of lab rat. At this point you have to decide if your a deist or a theist The deist would hold God created the universe and has left it to run on its own devices with no intercession The theist holds that God created and intervenes in the world If you hold the deist position, than that leaves the question of moral compass. Is everything relative to our community with no real good and evil? Because if God "set its and forgets it" than we have no direction from Him regarding morals. Many people who absolutely deny God's existence will cite the greatness of Jesus's moral teachings. What He spoke about is an underlying foundation stone of the morals of society, this combined with the creation narrative in Genesis points to God the creator (Father Son Spirit) also being the author of morals. Also Christianity makes its case for being a world encompassing religion via the Great Commission of Christ after the resurrection. This leads me to believe in the moral validity of Christianity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben, why does God punish children with deformities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is so close to the watchmaker argument it hurts. It's the Aristotle's Prime Mover argument. It's old as the hills. Hume liked it though. He was an ardent atheist and logical positivist but essentially said that based upon this argument, belief in God is not irrational.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Empirical evidence beyond the creation itself is admittedly a tough subject, but i have heard it explained that God did not intend for us to treat Him as some kind of lab rat. At this point you have to decide if your a deist or a theist I didn't ask about any of that, I apologize if I'm being unclear. I'm acknowledging for the sake of this argument that God exists. But you have likewise acknowledged that other God-like beings exist that would be capable of taking me somewhere with them when I die. So my question to you is which God created the universe? What is it exactly that makes you so sure that it was the God of Abraham? Just the fact that its a "world encompassing religion"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I didn't ask about any of that, I apologize if I'm being unclear. Well I was trying to answer what you were asking. I was starting with the idea of "God who created the universe". Then, I put forth there are two categories of belief of "God who created the universe" you have deist, and theist. either He intervenes in the world or he doesn't essentially (still not the Christian God specifically at this point) So, I present why I don't go the deist route, because it makes life basically meaningless other than existential (reasons you create yourself sort of thing) reasons. After all, in this situation, there is nothing really good or evil, other than what society deems to be good or evil (but that is always subject to change of course) and some people believe there really are such things as good and evil no matter what people think at a given time (I would be one of those) So now I seek for God who intervenes and has given us morals and ethics to live our life by because the planets and the stars and the marijuana plants don't have any morals to help me with that kind of thing So, I can either believe in an abstract sort of personal idea of God or an established belief system I choose the establish belief system because if God is giving me directions He probably wants to give it to others looking for the same thing, and the stuff in my imagination just tends to be me playing army and a hodgepodge of video game memories. So I take the different faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and evaluate what the landscape looks like and make my decision on which ties in A. Creator God and B. Basis of Morality the best way and I personally find that the God of Abraham fits those specific criteria the best, as do a lot of other people smarter than me who came up with things like the contingency argument in the first place then you could say "hey wait a minute! Islam and Judaism also believe in the same God right???? as far as Genesis creation narrative goes, yeah they are I guess, but the one that best completes the grand narrative is Christianity hands down so when we boil it down to those three the case for Christianity to me makes the most since given what we have to work with debating the merits of Islam and Judaism or any other is a tricky subject because there are plenty of people in those camps with many reasons for their beliefs and I respect their differences of opinion. Let me be clear on one thing though. When I said that the entities of different religions exist, I cannot at all ponder which ones do and which ones don't unless its obvious ones like a golden calf that don't have any merits. \They may even want to take you with them and you might be able to go with them but you have to go through judgment from Yahweh. Its appointed for every man to die once and be judged according to scriptures. He might could disown you at the judgment and leave your soul in the pit for whoever comes a long to abduct you and then..well how could I possibly tell you what happens in that situation is my point about it being way too speculative of me to try and answer. Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Let me be clear on one thing though. When I said that the entities of different religions exist, I cannot at all ponder which ones do and which ones don't unless its obvious ones like a golden calf that don't have any merits. After all I personally attest to demonic activity I have witnessed, how can I say these other beings don't exist in any shape or fashion. They may even want to take you with them and you might be able to go with them but you have to go through judgment from Yahweh. Its appointed for every man to die once and be judged according to scriptures. He might could disown you at the judgment and leave your soul in the pit and then how could I possibly tell you what happens in that situation is my point about it being way too speculative of me to try and answer. So now what you're saying is that if I believe in a different God, Yahweh may actually deny me access to this God after my death, and throw my soul in the pit? That's not what you said before at all, you said when I die I get to go with my God. I guess we're back to the original question then. If don't accept Jesus, do I end up being thrown in the pit regardless of how decently I lived my life or how much I loved my neighbor as myself? If the answer is "I really don't know", that's cool. I'm trying to figure out if you just don't want to tell me that I'm going to hell or if you haven't thought the issue through fully. Its gotta be one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:So now what you're saying is that if I believe in a different God, Yahweh may actually deny me access to this God after my death, and throw my soul in the pit? That's not what you said before at all, you said when I die I get to go with my God. The answer I gave near the beginning was that I believe. All people die and then are judged. Only God is that judge. I don't feel comfortable telling you that your going to hell. Now what I will tell you is that the odds don't look high if you don't have something to pay your sin debt. We all do things that would be transgressions against the ten commandments at some point (and frequently) in our lives. The only payment for that debt that I believe is acceptable is Christ's atonement. Without that you don't stand a chance in my book, unless you were like the man in Papua New Guinea who lived a blameless of a life as Job and never heard the gospel not once in his entire life. So I can say that maybe that it seems very likely your going to have this happen but I won't sit in the judgment seat and condemn you myself
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:The answer I gave near the beginning was that I believe. All people die and then are judged. Only God is that judge. I don't feel comfortable telling you that your going to hell. Now what I will tell you is that the odds don't look high if you don't have something to pay your sin debt. We all do things that would be transgressions against the ten commandments at some point (and frequently) in our lives. The only payment for that debt that I believe is acceptable is Christ's atonement. Without that you don't stand a chance in my book, unless you were like the man in Papua New Guinea who lived a blameless of a life as Job and never heard the gospel not once in his entire life. So I can say that maybe that it seems very likely your going to have this happen but I won't sit in the judgment seat and condemn you myself Well I'm never going to accept Jesus as my savior, so I guess I'm goin! I feel like you've clearly stated your position now, so thanks, and I'll bow out and let you answer other people's questions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:So now what you're saying is that if I believe in a different God, Yahweh may actually deny me access to this God after my death, and throw my soul in the pit? That's not what you said before at all, you said when I die I get to go with my God. No, what I was saying I believe is that if you believe in a different god than Yahweh then Yahweh is going to judge you first no matter what you believe, and God's rejection is going to leave your soul in the pit (darkness, hell, etc) and then mabye whatever you believed in could help you out. Then you have the problem of not being allowed back into God's soverign domain, so now you don't have the luxories he affords us like peace and love and nature and light etc., sounds demonic and I think it would be personally. Like I said, you might be able to go with whatever it is you want to believe in, but there are problems you gotta deal with according to the scriptures Yehoshua Eben fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
How do you feel about evolution?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
bigperm posted:How do you feel about evolution? He thinks everything was put here as is, but was made to appear, by God, as if it evolved over time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
bigperm posted:How do you feel about evolution? Well I don't know a whole lot about sciences beyond the basics, but: I know I believe in adaption, that is undeniable to me I don't believe that the idea of evolution is completley incompatible with Christianity, as God can use the means of adaption and evolving organisms over time as His means to bringing about what He desires and leaving a dynamic world in tact for us to function in, essentailly his telos over the earth
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:He thinks everything was put here as is, but was made to appear, by God, as if it evolved over time. Oh yeah, the "God's just fuckin' with you" argument, put forth by the Rev. William Hicks, among others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
How old do you think the earth is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:Well I don't know a whole lot about sciences beyond the basics, but: Let me skip then to some of the ramifications of evolution that you may have not considered and ask how you feel about them. All living things are descended from the same single entity. We as humans share a common heritage with dogs, plants and every other living thing on the planet. This mean that if you could look at pictures of your father, then his father and then his father and so on - if you looked long enough you would see (what you would call) apes, then lizard like mammals and then fish and then probably flatworms and then all the way down the the origin of all life. Does this notion conflict with your views of human creation a la Adam and Eve?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:Oh yeah, the "God's just fuckin' with you" argument, put forth by the Rev. William Hicks, among others. I said I believe it was possible for God to do this in the same way I believe its possible He could create a 100 year old oak tree instantly and if we were to examine the oak tree by all standards it would be 100 years old. I was not present when He was carrying this out, nor did I receive a heavenly prophecy telling me of its occurrence like Moses did Feel free to ask me about any particular book in the Bible I do want to address the question by the person about the child suffering with disabilities, and the great flood question but I have answered a lot of stuff today and I will try to get to them tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Osama Dozen-Dongs posted:Why does he punish his creations for acting the way he created them, again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
bigperm posted:Let me skip then to some of the ramifications of evolution that you may have not considered and ask how you feel about them. If we did come from flatworms, could we still be made in God's image to you if He was superintending the development of life? Man was said to be created from the dust of the earth, so regardless of it being sand particles or blue green algae our origins are humble in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Who's to say God isn't a flatworm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Who's to say God isn't a flatworm? Whoa. I think I just saw Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Yehoshua Eben posted:If we did come from flatworms, could we still be made in God's image to you if He was superintending the development of life? That being said, I asked how you felt about it - not for you to ask me something so childish. Yehoshua Eben posted:Man was said to be created from the dust of the earth, so regardless of it being sand particles or blue green algae our origins are humble in that sense. Also, I am particularly annoyed that while bestowing mankind with the knowledge of salvation god didn't bother telling us about germ theory or electricity or anything really useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Solumin posted:To expand a little, your argument jumps from "The universe has a cause of its existence" to "that cause must be the Christian God as described in the Holy Bible." This is what Paramemetic meant when he said your argument is valid but not sound: you make an assumption (that the cause is specifically your god) that does not follow from the premise. This guy gets it. The argument is valid - structurally it is a deductive argument with a valid form that, if all the premises are true, is necessarily true. That said, the issue is that it's not necessarily sound. Specifically, premises 2 and 3 are both somewhat dubious, with 2 obviously being much more dubious. The reason for 3 being dubious is tied up in a lot of semantics and not particularly interesting, but the issue with 2 is that this is a premise that itself is begging the question. Begging the question specifically means making an assumption that is also the thing to be proven. Here, we make a premise "if the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God." The premise fails truth tests because it is possible that that thing could be anything at all and will be equally true. In this case I might be particularly keen to say "mind itself" instead of God, because that leads us down some wonderfully interesting roads - the universe as it exists is phenomenal in nature because we have no access to determine if noumena exist or do not and regardless they don't matter to us at all, and because all this universe is phenomena, then the predicate for their existence is mind itself. Mind itself is inherently without any qualities, like the sky in which clouds arise, or like dimensional space, where no matter how you configure the matter within it you do not change the nature of the space. But that's not quite accurate because mind itself doesn't give rise to or create the universe, the universe simply arises within it. Anyhow, that's just an example of how you could put literally anything in that "God" slot and end up with an equally valid but equally uncertain form. Yehoshua Eben posted:Let me add to what I said earlier, about I don't think I can let this second part of the premise slide by easily. If God is beginningless and endless, then God must be unchanging. God cannot be unchanging and also be the creator of the Universe, because the Universe is with beginnings and endings (or, at least, its configurations change - the Universe is undeniably impermanent). So, if the universe begins because God creates the Universe, then God has changed - this is plainly obvious. If someone makes a violin, they become the maker of that violin. The change is subtle, but it's definitely a real change. So, if God creates something, then God's states change. When God's states change, the "God" that had not created anything ceases to exist - you cannot find that "God" anywhere! You can only find the "God" that created that thing. Therefore, a God that creates the Universe must necessarily be a God that has beginnings, and therefore must necessarily also have both endings and, from your first premise, must also have a cause himself. quote:I want to combine what I said about the contingency argument with the Kalaam argument Here I would challenge premise 2. While premise 1 is true of any given thing - all phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions, premise 2 is not clearly true. The universe, if we define it as "the sum all all phenomenal existence" cannot have a beginning as such - it is constituted entirely of emptiness. No phenomena exist that are not experienced, and so for anything to exist it must necessarily exist dependent on something else. We cannot point to a beginning of the universe, because by the very pointing there would have to be a pointer. Nobody can experience a beginning of the universe, nobody has experienced that. We can certainly say that individual things within the universe, even configurations of the universe, and so on, all exist (relatively) dependent on causes and conditions. Without getting into too much on Buddhism's own philosophical bases, I can say that premise 2 is certainly dubious from my point of view. The actual existence or non-existence of the universe is likewise rather dubious, but gets into some difficult territory that requires a good bit of study to hash out and make sense of, and anyways isn't apropos to the topic. So essentially again we have another form of an argument that is valid but not sound. The latter argument in fact is more difficult to consider sound because the first premise, that God is existent but without beginning, is so troublesome, as was clearly stated. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 02:39
|
|