Just Believe

[ecco]

One reason for this, along with my own innate desire to keep living and not die is this:

One of the primary reasons for belief in gods is fear of dying. You need to hope for eternal life. I'm comfortable knowing that all things die.

 

[blü 2]

There is evidence of design in the universe. Where there is design, there is a designer.

If everything needs a designer, who designed the designer? And who designed the designer designer? And who designed the designer designer designer? And who ...
[

Man in his limited understanding, cannot claim to know all the laws governing nature, and how those laws can be utilized.

Someone more advanced than man can do far more, beyond man's understanding... and scientist have not ruled our intelligence far greater advanced than man.

So God is just an alien entity who happens to be a superscientist? As I said, I've never seen that claim made loud and proud by believers before.

And that answer defines the problem ─ if God is a superscientist then our task now includes setting out to learn everything God knows and we don't ─ to outGod God, not to live in thrall to an alien being.
[

Romans 1:20 says nothing about God having a son. It simply is pointing out that the evidence is clear for one to perceive that there is a creator, and that evidence is being denied.

It's actually a reflection of Paul's gnostic views, God as infinitely pure and infinitely remote, so that the demiurge, Jesus, as creator or the material world, must mediate between man and God.
[

Scientist find explanations for phenomenon.
What makes their explanation better than another who explains design in nature as the product of a designer?

Science, as I said, is not justified because it possesses absolute truths, since there are none. It's justified because reasoned skeptical enquiry, of which it's a subset, works in practice better than any presently-known alternatives.

 

[blü 2]

OF COURSE THEY ARE. But this has nothing whatever to do with the actual existence of God/gods. Which is what you seem to be profoundly ignorant of, and confused about.

Which brings us back to the remarkable lack of a definition appropriate to a god who has objective existence, is not solely conceptual / imaginary, such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not.

In other words, when you say God, what real being, one with objective existence, do you intend to denote?

 

[danieldemol]

Oh. You were there? What name did you go by then?
What reasons do I have for believing you, as opposed to those who claim to have actually witnesses these events first hand, and whose story checks out by secondary sources?

Neither was I there nor where you there, hence we both should consider all the evidence, and not just take fantastical non-repeatable claims at their word.
Your claims sound similar albeit from a non-trinitarian perspective to Peter J Williams who debates Bart Ehrman here:

You may be interested in the Williams vs Ehrman debate because Ehrman does not even have a go on miracles which I think he potentially could have had he wanted to.

For a shorter look at the problem with contemporary claims of miracles you might watch this video examining and deconstructing a modern miracle and think about why we can't just take stories of miracles at their word if you forward to 3:25;

The Jews were wayward - a rebellious stiff-necked lot.
It says so in their own book, which they live by, so why would you accept the claims of a people whose priest were so corrupt they and the people suffered numerous times at the hands of their enemies, and by 70 AD, they still did not change their attitude, and again suffered terribly for it?

It seems to me if I were rebellious, I too would take their side. You know what they say, "Birds of a feather...".

Its not about taking sides, you are trying to say something is true or not true based on it's source. Jesus had authority over a small number of men, He only had something like 11 fulltime disciples prior to the alleged resurrection, He was hardly a scriptural authority.

Is that what you got from reading that article?
Then may I suggest you give considerations to why it was posted, because you jumped to the wrong conclusion.
The reason the article was quoted, has nothing to do with evidence, but rather to show that calling an act that involves something beyond one's limited understanding, magic, is neither reasonable, nor logical. It does not fit the facts.

Man in his limited understanding, cannot claim to know all the laws governing nature, and how those laws can be utilized.
Man harnesses energy. he uses it to accomplish amazing things. he is not doing magic. He is simply using elements in a way he understands.
Someone more advanced than man can do far more, beyond man's understanding... and scientist have not ruled our intelligence far greater advanced than man.

If that is the case there is nothing that God did which is not repeatable if it is just obeying the laws of nature. Which means that man can potentially do anything God can do. So man could potentially create life? Then why aren't there JW scientists studying how life was formed?

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

Which brings us back to the remarkable lack of a definition appropriate to a god who has objective existence, is not solely conceptual / imaginary, such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not.

In other words, when you say God, what real being, one with objective existence, do you intend to denote?

There is nothing particularly remarkable about a mystery. We all know what a mystery is, and that mysteries do "exist". Because we can know that we don't know something without knowing what it is that we don't know. We can recognize that information is missing, by the information around it that we have.

So all this whining about how God is not defined is basically just that. God is a mystery. In fact, it's the greatest of mysteries in that it is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Including ourselves. And as with any mystery that we humans deem significant, we tend to generate images and stories and idealized representations to help us deal with them. (Think of the mystery of the existence of 'evil', for example.) As we have done with the greatest mystery of all, that we call "God" (in English, anyway).

So there it is; that definition that you insist you can never get, and that you presume means that God must not exist. (Although the logic behind that presumption is absurdly illogical.)

 

[YoursTrue]

There is so much against the process of creation of the universe and the advent of humans which the scriptures mention - the six day creation and creation of Adam from mud and creation of woman from ribs (or from baculum - penis bone, as some have opined. That is why baculum is mising in humans).

"The first recorded attempts to explain the lack of baculum in humans might be more than two thousand years old: the Biblical 'rib' that was 'taken' from Adam may actually be the baculum." Baculum - Wikipedia

About the dust -- I'd just like to mention that there's a lot of things going to dust, right? (Bodies, plants, swept up soil...)
Genesis 2:7 says that Adam was taken from dust. Notice, please, two translations of that verse:

• American Standard Version
• And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

• The Emphasized Bible
• So then Yahweh God formed man [of the] dust of the ground, and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life--and man became a living soul.

However it happened technically, it makes sense that the body is described as coming from dust. Because then one could figure--what's in dust anyway? OK, take care.

 

[PureX]

Moses isn't thought to have been a real person. And the books attributed to this character aren't considered to be from one person, or a Moses. We need to examine all this from a more factual approach rather than from the various religious assumptions.

That would be a huge waste of time, in my opinion, as all it would conclude is that a mythological story is a mythological story. Which we should have concluded quite easily without expending all that time and energy proving it.

On the other hand, most myths are built on some factual information; partly because of how they come to be, and partly to help the listener identify with them, and apply the messages they convey to their own lives. So, I suppose, if one wanted to study a myth with the intention to discerning the factual information from the fictional representation, that could be done, and might be somewhat useful.

As to the people who don't or won't acknowledge that a mythical story is a mythical story, and instead insist that it's factually historical, I can see no point in arguing with them, as they have clearly already rejected, in advance, any logical argument that could be put forth. So, again, why waste the time and energy?

 

[PureX]

If everything needs a designer, who designed the designer? And who designed the designer designer?

It's a mystery. But the fact that it's a mystery does not negate the original observation. Can you at least acknowledge that?

There are a great many things we humans do not know or understand, and that we may well never know or understand. We were not 'designed' to be omniscient. We simply do not have that capacity. Surely, you can recognize and understand this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Neither was I there nor where you there, hence we both should consider all the evidence, and not just take fantastical non-repeatable claims at their word.
Your claims sound similar albeit from a non-trinitarian perspective to Peter J Williams who debates Bart Ehrman here:

You may be interested in the Williams vs Ehrman debate because Ehrman does not even have a go on miracles which I think he potentially could have had he wanted to.

For a shorter look at the problem with contemporary claims of miracles you might watch this video examining and deconstructing a modern miracle and think about why we can't just take stories of miracles at their word if you forward to 3:25;

Its not about taking sides, you are trying to say something is true or not true based on it's source. Jesus had authority over a small number of men, He only had something like 11 fulltime disciples prior to the alleged resurrection, He was hardly a scriptural authority.


If that is the case there is nothing that God did which is not repeatable if it is just obeying the laws of nature. Which means that man can potentially do anything God can do. So man could potentially create life? Then why aren't there JW scientists studying how life was formed?

In my opinion.

The research is there so whether there are Christians who are researchers as far as life coming about does not really matter, does it, because the findings of research are often published -- and so far, from the research it can be seen that chromosomal structures are very, very complicated. Yet the question arises-- how did such complex structures get to be? How did the so-called Big Bang start? And then, of course, the big question is, how does 'life' come into the proclaimed first cells to evolve? I mean, in order to reproduce, an animal generally has to be alive, doesn't it? Anyone know? Do you really think science, no matter how much research there is, will find out how life as we know it came about?
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[blü 2]

we can know that we don't know something without knowing what it is that we don't know.

And attribute imaginary powers and magical deeds to it? And then worship it? Really?[/quote]

So all this whining about how God is not defined is basically just that.

Each to each's opinion, I guess, but in my book it's not merely whining to point out that God has no definition appropriate to a real being ─ it's pointing out that no one who says God has objective existence has the faintest idea what they're talking about.

Leaving only purely conceptual and imaginary beings ─ a datum which for better or worse fits perfectly with everything that can be shown about God.

God is a mystery. In fact, it's the greatest of mysteries in that it is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Including ourselves. And as with any mystery that we humans deem significant, we tend to generate images and stories and idealized representations to help us deal with them. As we have done with the greatest mystery that we call "God" (in English, anyway).

So there it is; that definition that you insist you can never get, and that you presume means that God must not exist. (Although the logic behind that presumption is absurdly illogical.)

You misunderstand my (igtheist) position. I don't say "God doesn't exist". I say, "I have no idea what real thing it is that you're attributing existence to."

If I ever find out then for the first time I'll be in a position to decide whether I think it exists or not.

 

[blü 2]

It's a mystery. But the fact that it's a mystery does not negate the original observation. Can you at least acknowledge that?

Your position appears to entail an infinite regression. Round my way, we tend to regard that as close enough to a negation.

There are a great many things we humans do not know or understand, and that we may well never know or understand. We were not 'designed' to be omniscient. We simply do not have that capacity. Surely, you can recognize and understand this.

I think I've asked you before, but I'll try again: how can God know there aren't things [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

 

[PureX]

And attribute imaginary powers and magical deeds to it? And then worship it? Really?

Each to each's opinion, I guess, but in my book it's not merely whining to point out that God has no definition appropriate to a real being ─ it's pointing out that no one who says God has objective existence has the faintest idea what they're talking about.

Your obsession with "objective existence" is inapplicable, here. Mysteries do not "objectively exist", they are a cognitive phenomenon. Which is why we humans tend to use our imaginations to try and grapple with them. I can see that you REALLY don't like that we do this, but nevertheless, imagining the possibilities is one of the main methods we humans have and use to deal with the unknown, and even your sacred scientists engage in it.

Leaving only purely conceptual and imaginary beings ─ a datum which for better or worse fits perfectly with everything that can be shown about God.

Such imaginary representations really are imaginary representations. And they really are a common means used by humans to attempt to understand the mystery source, sustenance and purpose of existence. Just because you REALLY don't like that doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or useless, or that we should dismiss it with scorn and focus only and always of science as our singular method of dealing with the unknown.

Perhaps, instead, you could focus on whatever it is that is driving you to so loathe imaginative representation, and thereby dissipate it's hold on you.

I don't say "God doesn't exist". I say, "I have no idea what real thing it is that you're attributing existence to."

God is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. The mystery is real. Why is the reality of that mystery so difficult for you to accept? The mystery really is a thing. And it really is an important thing to the vast majority of humans. As it has always been.

 

[PureX]

Your position appears to entail an infinite regression. Round my way, we tend to regard that as close enough to a negation.

"We saw that the sky was blue, but how or why it was blue remained a mystery to us."

See, mysteries are real. They are everywhere. Sometimes they are even "objective" (I know you're obsessed with this criteria). And just look at how this mystery, here, does not negate the observation that made us aware of it! And how the fact that it remains a mystery to "us" doesn't render it irrelevant, or insignificant. So, "round your way", it seems your negation is mostly just a determined bias against a particular mystery.

I think I've asked you before, but I'll try again: how can God know there aren't things [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

Why would you ask me what God knows or doesn't know? You can't be foolish enough to think I could answer such a question?

 

[blü 2]

Your obsession with "objective existence" is inapplicable, here. Mysteries do not "objectively exist", they are a cognitive phenomenon.

Yes, that's the point ─ the only manner in which gods are know to exist is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. They don't exist in the world external to the self; otherwise someone might be able to show us a photo and we'd know what they look like.

Which is why we humans tend to use our imaginations to try and grapple with them. I can see that you REALLY don't like that we do this, but nevertheless, imagining the possibilities is one of the main methods we humans have and use to deal with the unknown, and even your sacred scientists engage in it.

I think that point needs more work ─ scientists are answerable to reality in a way that theologists are not.

Perhaps, instead, you could focus on whatever it is that is driving you to so loathe imaginative representation, and thereby dissipate it's hold on you.

The question is not about "imaginative representation". The question is not having a clue what one's talking about when one claims God is real.

 

[PureX]

Yes, that's the point ─ the only manner in which gods are know to exist is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. They don't exist in the world external to the self; ...

We don't know what exists external to the self because it's only through the self that we can know anything exists at all. This is why and how your philosophical materialism fails as a philosophical proposition. "Objective reality" is exactly as much a conceptual fiction as "subjective reality" is because it's all being derived subjectively.

I think that point needs more work ─ scientists are answerable to reality in a way that theologists are not.

They are only answerable to physical reality (physicality). Philosophical materialism asserts that's all the reality there is. But of course that's quite wrong, because "reality" is, itself, a subjectively generated and determined circumstance.

 

[blü 2]

"We saw that the sky was blue, but how or why it was blue remained a mystery to us."

See, mysteries are real. They are everywhere. Sometimes they are even "objective" (I know you're obsessed with this criteria). And just look at how this mystery, here, does not negate the observation that made us aware of it! And how the fact that it remains a mystery to "us" doesn't render it irrelevant, or insignificant. So, "round your way", it seems your negation is mostly just a determined bias against a particular mystery.
Why would you ask me what God knows or doesn't know? You can't be foolish enough to think I could answer such a question?

So you make no claim of divine omniscience?

What about omnipotence? (It would seem to follow that if you were omnipotent you could make yourself omniscient ─ or omniscient as far as you know ─ with a finger-snap, no?

What about perfect? Is God perfect? Or is 'perfect' too vague to have any denotative meaning?

What about 'eternal'? Is God inside time, at least when [he]'s in the universe? Or was Augustine of Hippo right when he said of God, "anni tui omnes simul stant" ─ all your years exist at once?

 

[blü 2]

We don't know what exists external to the self because it's only through the self that we can know anything exists at all. This is why and how your philosophical materialism fails as a philosophical proposition. "Objective reality" is exactly as much a conceptual fiction as "subjective reality" is because it's all being derived subjectively.
They are only answerable to physical reality (physicality). Philosophical materialism asserts that's all the reality there is. But of course that's quite wrong, because "reality" is, itself, a subjectively generated and determined circumstance.

Alas, we seem doomed to disagree.

If you're right, if there's no world external to the self that our senses can inform us of, then you're a solipsist, and I and this conversation are just figments of your imagination.

But if there is such a world, and you exist and I also and separately exist, and we're able to have this conversation because of the discoveries about reality of scientists and the ingenuity of technicians ─ as indeed I think is the case ─ then that makes the point I'm making.

 

[PureX]

So you make no claim of divine omniscience?

What about omnipotence? (It would seem to follow that if you were omnipotent you could make yourself omniscient ─ or omniscient as far as you know ─ with a finger-snap, no?

What about perfect? Is God perfect? Or is 'perfect' too vague to have any denotative meaning?

What about 'eternal'? Is God inside time, at least when [he]'s in the universe? Or was Augustine of Hippo right when he said of God, "anni tui omnes simul stant" ─ all your years exist at once?

Humans assign these traits to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is because from our perspective, all of those traits would be contained within that entity. You're trying so hard to dismiss the obvious that you can't even see the obvious. How could the source of all that is not contain the knowledge of all that is? How could the purpose of all that it not be in control of all that is? How could the sustenance of all that is not be manifesting in all that is?

 

[PureX]

Alas, we seem doomed to disagree.

If you're right, if there's no world external to the self ...

This was never my contention. My contention is that WHATEVER is external to the self, we can only experience it THROUGH THE SELF. So this insistence of yours that "objective evidence must be required to validate objective reality" is just plain illogical nonsense. There is no "objective evidence" or "objective reality" because 1., there is only 'what is': ... i.e., one reality. And 2., there is no reality, to us, that is not subjectively derived.

... that our senses can inform us of, then you're a solipsist, and I and this conversation are just figments of your imagination.

Solipsism has nothing to do with this discussion. But so long as you continue to hold onto that archaic and long-ago debunked philosophical materialist philosophy, you will continue to be unable to understand and rationally deal with the ideas being presented to you.

 

[F1fan]

That would be a huge waste of time, in my opinion, as all it would conclude is that a mythological story is a mythological story. Which we should have concluded quite easily without expending all that time and energy proving it.

On the other hand, most myths are built on some factual information; partly because of how they come to be, and partly to help the listener identify with them, and apply the messages they convey to their own lives. So, I suppose, if one wanted to study a myth with the intention to discerning the factual information from the fictional representation, that could be done, and might be somewhat useful.

As to the people who don't or won't acknowledge that a mythical story is a mythical story, and instead insist that it's factually historical, I can see no point in arguing with them, as they have clearly already rejected, in advance, any logical argument that could be put forth. So, again, why waste the time and energy?

Believers have invested a lot of time in their myths, so naturally there is an emotional resistance to looking into the history that will shatter the illusion.