impossible,

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are much bigger questions too. Like:
1. What does 'forever' mean? ie is time infinite or finite? did time have a beginning? Was that beginning at the big bang or before?
2. What defines what is 'possible' or 'impossible'? You are making judgements based on the rules of the known universe yet those rules may be confined to only a subset of reality. ...[text shortened]... observable universe and if there is but we can never know about it, does it really exist?

2. What defines what is 'possible' or 'impossible'? You are making judgements based on the rules of the known universe yet those rules may be confined to only a subset of reality. -------------------------------------------- -whitey-----------


Unbelievable! You label my ideas about time , God and omniscience as illogical and yet you admit here that what we think of as logical or "possible" is only based on our known universe and may only be a subset of reality. This is exactly what I am saying.

The idea that God could know our futures seems strange within the known universe , but who knows from outside it.

When we say " free will and God's omniscience are incompatible we are making those judgements "based on the rules of the known universe".

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
any way you look at it, god created it, it just happened, or its always been; they all point to the same conclusion, our present day. how is it possible that out of nothing, we got something? how is it possible for god to exist and create everything? and how is it possible that everything has just existed forever? this was just a thought but doesn't it ...[text shortened]... e theories even seem possible, although i accept the big bang theory before any of the others.

You're getting there! Embrace the mystery of it all! There can be no final explanation because such an explanation would require an explanation itself. Even God is not an explanation because God is just an expression of the eternal mystery , just endless depths that doesn't stop.

Once you grasp that rationality finally breaks down somewhere and has to , then you will be free to look at faith as a way of knowing rather than relying on your intellect.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You're getting there! Embrace the mystery of it all! There can be no final explanation because such an explanation would require an explanation itself. Even God is not an explanation because God is just an expression of the eternal mystery , just endless depths that doesn't stop.

Once you grasp that rationality finally breaks down somewhere and ...[text shortened]... n you will be free to look at faith as a way of knowing rather than relying on your intellect.

Well, that's convenient. "Don't expect an explanation because such an explanation would require an explanation itself." Huh. If that weren't so confusing it would almost be laughable. Is this the best reasoning you can give us?

Are you consciously denying your intellect and senses?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...

Once you grasp that rationality finally breaks down somewhere and has to , then you will be free to look at faith as a way of knowing rather than relying on your intellect.

“…you will be free to look at faith as a way of knowing …”

Faith is not “a way of knowing” as you put it. Faith is delusional belief without premise and therefore an unreliable source of ‘knowledge’ to say the least. You cannot “know” anything with faith.

“…rather than relying on your intellect”

So are you actually saying we should not reason?
Are you actually saying we should just blindly believe something even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Are you actually saying we should just ignore all evidence?
That is just stupid. Not using your intellect is, by definition, being stupid.

Originally posted by scherzo
Are you consciously denying your intellect and senses?

How reliable are these things?

To what extent is your intellect a toy of your subconscious impulses?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Faith is not “a way of knowing” as you put it. Faith is delusional belief without premise and therefore an unreliable source of ‘knowledge’ to say the least. You cannot “know” anything with faith.

Faith is a paradox. Have you read Kierkegaard on the subject? I urge you to tackle him before parading your -- good intentions.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How reliable are these things?

To what extent is your intellect a toy of your subconscious impulses?

Compared to the Bible, very very very reliable. I am much more willing to trust my knowledge than a bunch of unproven theories with no basis in fact about how God created the world in 6 days.

Originally posted by scherzo
Compared to the Bible, very very very reliable. I am much more willing to trust my knowledge than a bunch of unproven theories with no basis in fact about how God created the world in 6 days.

I've never yet met anyone who referred to the Bible before making a practical decision. I suppose such people exist, but there are fools of every stripe. Tell me -- do you really think the majority of religious folk literally believe in that myth? I know that the Catholic church, which constitutes the majority of Christians (nobody else treats the Bible as a holy book), does not.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've never yet met anyone who referred to the Bible before making a practical decision. I suppose such people exist, but there are fools of every stripe. Tell me -- do you really think the majority of religious folk literally believe in that myth? I know that the Catholic church, which constitutes the majority of Christians (nobody else treats the Bible as a holy book), does not.

I tell you, Bosse, that there are very many that believes litterary, in chosen parts, the bible as being true. They are often loudmouths, who reject evolution, and think people is unintelligent to reject the biblical miracles. Some even believs of the end of the world as described in the bible, and would gladly help the process to be true (the apocalyptists).

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I tell you, Bosse, that there are very many that believes litterary, in chosen parts, the bible as being true. They are often loudmouths, who reject evolution, and think people is unintelligent to reject the biblical miracles. Some even believs of the end of the world as described in the bible, and would gladly help the process to be true (the apocalyptists).

I believe you, but I haven't met any. Perhaps (I flatter myself) I choose my company wisely.

Let me ask you -- have you met such stubborn intransigence in areas of life other than religious belief?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Faith is a paradox. Have you read Kierkegaard on the subject? I urge you to tackle him before parading your -- good intentions.

I have just looked Kierkegaard up. He believed (amongst other things) that:

“… to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists…”

He says a great deal more than this but is that what you mean by “Faith is a paradox”?
Even if I except this particular definition of ‘faith’, how could it convince me that I am wrong when I said:

“Faith is delusional belief without premise and therefore an unreliable source of ‘knowledge’ to say the least. You cannot “know” anything with faith. “ ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I have just looked Kierkegaard up.

Super. Read 'Fear and Trembling' (available online; at least read chapter 3) and get back to me.

By the way, if you claim faith to be delusional, please define 'delusional' and then demonstrate how faith is such. It's quite likely that Kierkegaard anticipates your demonstration.

This is not to wave a flag for religion; it's just to expose you to a very tough-minded thinker whose views are opposed to my own, but whom I have not yet managed to refute (even though he's dead).

-- But you're right: you can't 'know' anything with faith. Understanding that is a first step towards understanding what faith means.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What I see is a bunch of speculations. And that is the difference.

There is a difference, and you know what I'm talking about. Then again maybe you don't. You are either skirting the issue or you are genuinely incapable of following the thread. Too bad. 😞

Originally posted by josephw
There is a difference, and you know what I'm talking about. Then again maybe you don't. You are either skirting the issue or you are genuinely incapable of following the thread. Too bad. 😞

You should read Kierkegaard too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course your secret decoder ring told you that. Odd that you think that God would tell you the truth is he was in fact the youngest son of Jupiter.

What is also odd is that if someone told you that the universe didn't come from anywhere you would not accept that as a reasonable answer.

What is odd is that you would say I think God is the youngest son of Jupiter! Weird idea! 😕

"...the universe didn't come from anywhere..."

Ya, that makes sense! 🙄

Oddly enough God did in fact create the physical universe out of something we can't see, from someplace we don't know. So, in a sense, the universe didn't come from anywhere or from anything we know of.

Everything that exists was created by God. If you know better, then tell me where it came from.