WHY I BELIEVE THAT CHRIST IS GOD

[McBell]

See post 97#

So then it is to be assumed that everything that does not fit into your "real science" box considered by you to be "so-called science"?

 

[Colt]

And what makes you think that your unlinked and unnamed source has any validity at all? I can only see desperate Christians quoting that nonsense in a short Google search.

That is a fail, try again.

The truth in it should be apparent once you remove your stubborn human pride. You use the facts of science to go beyond science to a godless philosophy all while pretending its all strictly scientific.

 

[McBell]

And what makes you think that your unlinked and unnamed source has any validity at all? I can only see desperate Christians quoting that nonsense in a short Google search.

That is a fail, try again.

It is my suspicion that his "source" is a religious text:

The Urantia Book - Wikipedia​

 

[Colt]

So then it is to be assumed that everything does not fit into your "real science" box considered by you to be "so-called science"?

True science is a box, it deals strictly with materials and facts. Science isn't a philosophy about a Godless universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The truth in it should be apparent once you remove your stubborn human pride. You use the facts of science to go beyond science to a godless philosophy all while pretending its all strictly scientific.

No "stubborn pride" needed. Find a valid source. What you are complaining about are all emergent properties. We observe them quite often. Nothing surprising there except for those with an irrational agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is my suspicion that his "source" is a religious text:

The Urantia Book - Wikipedia​

Oh my!! I was right about a good laugh being had by all.

 

[McBell]

The truth in it should be apparent once you remove your stubborn human pride. You use the facts of science to go beyond science to a godless philosophy all while pretending its all strictly scientific.

Please present an example of when this was done.

A post numner will suffice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True science is a box, it deals strictly with materials and facts. Science isn't a philosophy about a Godless universe.

No one claimed that science was a philosophy about a godless universe. But people that use the scientific method have noticed something. There does not appear to be any need of a god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please present an example of when this was done.

A post numner will suffice.

I think that it is an example of severe projection on his part. Far too often they want atheists to positively aver that "there is no God" when in reality they simply say "There does not appear to be any evidence of a god so I will not believe in one until such evidence is presented". Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Colt]

Please present an example of when this was done.

A post numner will suffice.

Any time the doctrine of materialism is asserted.

The claim that since spirit can't be tested in the lab then it doesn't exist.

 

[McBell]

No one claimed that science was a philosophy about a godless universe.

I have seen him make that accusation numerous times in this very thread.

 

[McBell]

Any time the doctrine of materialism is asserted.

The claim that since spirit can't be tested in the lab then it doesn't exist.

So you are unable to present an example of someone doing the very thing you claim is being done?

That seems not only strange, but suspicious....

 

[Colt]

"If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status." UB 1955

 

[McBell]

"If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status." UB 1955

And?

You do understand that merely throwing out random verses from your holy book does nothing more than make you appear desperate to proselytize, right?

 

[mmarco]

Well, you aren't wrong, but if you only focus on the subatomic level of the brain, it won't tell you anything. It's like taking a picture with the zoom all the way up on your camera. All you will see are a few grass blades, and you'll miss out on seeing the whole rest of the scenerey.

When you look with a more of a zoomed out view, you can see how the brain's structure facilitates the environment for a consciousness to exist.

Simply false and absurd. First of all the structure of the brain provides no explanation for consciousness. Besides, your idea of "zoomed out view" implies the existence of consciousness. In fact, the choice of zooming or not can be done only from a conscious being. This means that consciousness is a necessary preliminary conddition for your exlanation for consciounsess, which represents an intrinsic logical contradiction. Nothing which intrinsically implies the existence of cosnciousness or the existence of a sujective point of view can provide a valid explenation for consciousness.
The fact that consciousness is irriducible to the law of physics proves that your assumption that consciousness is a product of the cerebral processes is incompatible with our scientific knowledges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any time the doctrine of materialism is asserted.

The claim that since spirit can't be tested in the lab then it doesn't exist.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? You just made one.

 

[Colt]

So you are unable to present an example of someone doing the very thing you claim is being done?

That seems not only strange, but suspicious....

Atheist do it all the time. Its common. that you play unaware of it is silly.

It goes like this, A claims a spiritual experience or God consciousness. B the atheist demands proof. A says I dont have such demonstrable proof. B says see there, that's proof it doesn't exist because it cannot be demonstrated as a fact.

And?

You do understand that merely throwing out random verses from your holy book does nothing more than make you appear desperate to proselytize, right?

Sometimes there are true truth seekers who are intellectually honest and mature enough to debate. You are not one of those people who can extrapolate truth from wherever it comes from, so it wouldn't matter what I present.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply false and absurd. First of all the structure of the brain provides no explanation for consciousness. Besides, your idea of "zoomed out view" implies the existence of consciousness. In fact, the choice of zooming or not can be done only from a conscious being. This means that consciousness is a necessary preliminary conddition for your exlanation for consciounsess, which represents an intrinsic logical contradiction. Nothing which intrinsically implies the existence of cosnciousness or the existence of a sujective point of view can provide a valid explenation for consciousness.
The fact that consciousness is irriducible to the law of physics proves that your assumption that consciousness is a product of the cerebral processes is incompatible with our scientific knowledges.

And this is just an argument from ignorance. One can just as easily use an argument "since we don't know there is no god". You do not see anyone on the atheist side do that.

 

[mmarco]

Hi Marco,
Although I agree with you with regards to Jesus's loving qualities, I can't see how the fact that he's loving, makes him God. What do you think is the connection between those two concepts?
.

If Jesus were not God, then the idea of a God that loves us so much to be willing to suffer a terrible death in order to save us, would not be true; hence God would love us less than our idea of God, which is impossible, because God's love is superior to every idea of love we can conceive.

 

[Colt]

Do you know what a strawman argument is? You just made one.

Straw man is when Atheist cant acknowledge truths and have to mock people because they weren't interested in sincere debate to begin with. Your mind is made up, not a true scientist nor a true truth seeker. Heckler on a religious form.