I think gnostic was right on. You need to get beyond one liner Theist assertions, and dialogue on a meaningful level understanding science, and the limits of your assertions,
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Law of Cause and Effect.
- Thread starter Polymath257
- Start date
I think gnostic was right on. You need to get beyond one liner Theist assertions, and dialogue on a meaningful level understanding science, and the limits of your assertions,
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and I look for rebuttal.
so far i see denial
little or no rebuttal
Cause and effect are firm in their relationship
not one without the other
cause proceeds effect
always
the universe is the effect
God is the Cause
I think i see denial as well...
I say it was a proper rebuttal. It worked. You just said "nuh uh" in response.
I mean damn son. I sure as hell do see denial here somewhere.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Bull.
You seek agreement.
What exactly is it you claim is being denied?
Seems you have not once EVER answered that question....
Until you get to god.
Then cause and effect are tossed out the window like yesterdays garbage.
Nope.
Not always.
WHat caused god?
It is most comical how you destroy your own argument by not addressing the 600 pound elephant in the room: What caused god?
Sadder still that you think your old worn out "shallow retort" helps anything other than your fragile ego.
No argument there. One of my biases is that I should not believe anything without a good reason.
I have many other biases as well. I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. And I disapprove of pedophilia and drunk driving.
Bias and prejudice are only problems when they are irrational. When they are sound personal preferences, they are an asset. What is learning after all than the accumulation of biases about how the world is.
Like I said, I have no problem with you telling me that my rational skepticism, which includes a reject of god claims for lack of evidence, is a bias.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Until you get to God, right?
gnostic
The Lost One
The only person in denial here, is you, Thief.
And what you call rebuttals are just senseless one-liner mottos "Spirit first" or ""Spirit before Substance"...I certainly wouldn't call it "rebuttal", if that the best you've got.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
can't accept a simple line of thought ....can you?
science.....substance does not move of it's own volition
universe (one word)....a creation
Spirit first
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Most revealing how you deny your denial of science once it gets you to your favoured god....
One side effect of having someone in the 'ignore' category is that some posts become very difficult to understand because you only see one side.
Ignoring Thief is still worth it.
Ignoring Thief is still worth it.
Like anyone, I have my own biases, but I must admit a few of mine are not based on rational skepticism, but rather on my historical past.
While origins are interesting, I'm much more interested in how life changes.
gnostic
The Lost One
That depends on which or what "historical past" you are talking about.
Are you talking about your own genealogy or family tree?
Are you talking about your church history that you follow now, or churches before the Methodist were founded?
Are you talking about what were narrated in the bible or are you talking about history in general?
Can you be more specific what you are being "biased" about?
When there is no coherent argument there is no rebuttal.
This view ended with the passing of Newtonian Physics, With the present knowledge of the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics there is no objective evidence of any sort of beginning of our physical existence.
Fine, it is as you believe. This is an assertion of some beliefs of Theism. I am a Theist and I believe our physical existence is an eternal Creation of God that has always existed as a reflection of God's attributes in physical form.
I'm speaking mostly of my personal history. Like most people, I took on the religion of my family and community, growing up. It is a bias instilled by my environment, but kept alive by me. I view the Bible as largely, but not completely allegorical. I don't have what would be considered a personal relationship with Christ or God, but I believe in God. I consider science to be the best method we have for knowing. The rest of my view is belief based on faith. I can't prove it is true and don't waste my time trying, but I have to recognize the bias that it generates in my views. I'm usually on friendly terms with most views except certain hard line biases like fundamentalism that has no wiggle room. I find this to be true of both theism and atheism.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
first of all.....that you cannot follow a line of thought doesn't mean I am incoherent
Quantum mechanics remains on the chalkboard
and cannot be proven otherwise
no association between cause and effect...and therefore ...
no coherent connection one event to another
I do not believe we are God in flesh
we are spirit forming in flesh
to be released after the last breath
and life eternal is granted...not assumed
the peace of heaven is guarded
It is written.....fear not harm to the flesh
rather
fear He who is able to rend the soul
we have been assembled (creation )
we can be disassembled
Simple 'denial' is not a coherent response to anything.
Cause and effect can be denied simply based on a lack of evidence. You have not provided any objective evidence for you assertions.
First, your assertions did not make the chalk board. Again, again and again science does not prove anything, and it is still remains a fact that you have offered nothing coherent, nor objective evidence, to support your argument.
gnostic
The Lost One
My view are not much different from yours, I view most parts of bible to be allegorical or mythological, especially from Adam to David...except that I view the events that happened to the people in the bible, especially those concerning divine miracles (eg creating light with just words, creating man from dust, the talking donkey, raining manna, etc) and the revelations/prophecies, to be largely improbable.
Despite what creationists think of me and my view that I think Genesis is a myth or allegory, and despite my frequent clashes with creationists, I actually love Genesis myth about creation and flood, because it is my favourite book of the whole bible.
I like all sorts of myths, but I treat them as work of literature, not historical records. And I like myths enough to devote and to create 2 websites -
i simply enjoy ancient and medieval storytelling, it doesn't mean i have to believe in them as true.
The problem with creationists is that they view as literally true, as if they were history.
I just don't view Genesis to be historically or scientifically true or accurate, because most evidences are contrary to the biblical stories. The real values are the messages in the allegory - the moral messages - and not it's historical accuracy.
Genesis is sort of like one of Jesus' parables. The parables (or allegories) were never meant to be taken as literal; they are a teaching tool meant to make others contemplate the morality of the stories.
And I believe that you know that
gnostic
The Lost One
It is true that in a lot of the cases, that there is relationship between CAUSE and EFFECT.
But if there are evidences for the EFFECT, then there should be evidences for the CAUSE too.
That's not true in the case with the Creationist's argument for creationism or Intelligent Design.
We have evidences that nature and the universe existing, BUT with the Creator and Designer, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCES FOR THE CREATOR or DESIGNER EXISTING.
You have shown no evidences whatsoever, Thief, that the Creator (or God) existing. You have admitted that yourself there are no evidences for God, when you said something like this below, a number of times:
paraphrasing Thief's past motto said:
If there are no physical aspects to this God, no mean of directly interacting with God definitively, and if this God is not of this world, then how can you possibly say God exist. That being the case, then God is merely imaginary, invented by superstitious men, who has no understanding of nature.
There are only belief in God, which people accept as being true.
That's acceptance is called FAITH, NOT evidences, NOT facts.
The CAUSE, is not real, because there are no evidences for God, never have been any evidence.
God is not independent of man's belief. God is not independent of the various scriptures accepted by the 3 main Abrahamic scriptures, namely the Tanakh, Bible and Qur'an.
If you have definitive and verifiable evidences for God being real, existing independently from your scriptures and from your personal belief, then by all mean, Thief, show it to us.
If you can't show to us, then your claim that God being the CAUSE is nothing more than baseless wishful thinking.