Spirituality
21 Sep 16
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJello
... there could still be particularist conditions under which specific instances of such utterances fail to be cognitively meangingful. Presumably, there could be contextual instances in which such utterances are neither true nor false, such as when, for instance, there is no meaningful or clear definition of ‘God’ in play.
Those issues aside, though, it is clear that this thread is just another example, in an ancient line of examples, where some theist introduces special pleading for the case of God that is the equivalent of their stomping their feet like a petulant child whilst yelling “you cannot prove a negative!!!”
The petulant child seems to be you that has to go to the extreme of practically insisting that human language means nothing.
For example, if some version of theological noncognitivism is correct, then utterances like “God exists” are generally neither true nor false, failing to be even cognitively meaningful.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
Why can the universe not be eternally old?
Okay, that's a question worth contemplating.
As I do can you give me an example in the real world of something that there is an actual infinite amount of ?
I don't mean theoretically. I mean point to something that there is actually an infinite number of.
21 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipReading comprehension problem ?... there could still be particularist conditions under which specific instances of such utterances fail to be cognitively meangingful. Presumably, there could be contextual instances in which such utterances are neither true nor false, such as when, for instance, there is no meaningful or clear definition of ‘God’ in play.
Those ...[text shortened]... ists” are generally neither true nor false, failing to be even cognitively meaningful.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Sep 16
3 edits
Originally posted by sonship"Drive" or "Driven" might have been too strong a word. "Motivate" or "motivated" might be better.There is actually a point to it. Belief in the existence of God is sufficient to drive believers to carry out the agenda they ascribe to God.
A few believers being "driven" to carry out an agenda they ascribe to God doesn't prove much. Do you long to generalize to ascribe such a characteristics to all Christians in a grand blanket state ...[text shortened]... ist" if they are completely void of an subjective loving relationship with [b] "the Father".[/b]
Aren't you motivated to carry out an agenda you ascribe to God? Wouldn't you say that all Christians are called to do so?
Originally posted by sonshipEither that, or logic comprehension problem. Perhaps you could explain where you see a difficulty and I may be able to clarify for you. My guess is you think that only existent entities can do things. That is false. Superman has inspired many a young boy.
Reading comprehension problem ?
21 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipNot another 20 questions game? We have enough of that from FMJ. Why don't you first explain why you think he should be able to point to such an example. Stop wasting everyone's time and give your full reasoning.
Okay, that's a question worth contemplating.
As I do can you give me an example in the real world of something that there is an actual infinite amount of ?
I don't mean theoretically. I mean point to something that there is actually an infinite number of.
If he cannot find such a thing, what is the conclusion, and why does that conclusion not apply to God too?
22 Sep 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh, but if you can't answer his question then it shows that you can't prove that God exists - therefore God must exist!!! Here's a clue: there are an infinite number of points in the interval between 0 and 1. We have no particularly good reason to believe that this does not pertain in physics. So maybe God doesn't exist after all. I wanted to point this out but I'm holding a major grudge against sonship and am not willing to discuss anything with that individual ever again even if he apologizes for accusing me of holocaust denial, his God might forgive him but I will never do that. My father was brought up in a bomb shelter in Liverpool and I will not forgive that insult.
Not another 20 questions game? We have enough of that from FMJ. Why don't you first explain why you think he should be able to point to such an example. Stop wasting everyone's time and give your full reasoning.
If he cannot find such a thing, what is the conclusion, and why does that conclusion not apply to God too?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357
Aren't you motivated to carry out an agenda you ascribe to God? Wouldn't you say that all Christians are called to do so?
Yes, i am motivated by God's existence to, say, live Christ and preach the gospel - hence an agenda.
I do not consider burning crosses, burning women as witches, or some other bigoted agenda to be legitimate because of God's existence.
If I misunderstood you to mean ANY, and ALL agendas, no matter how outlandish or unrepresentative of God's character, that was my assumption of your meaning.
Obviously not all agendas ascribed to God are legitimate, regardless of who says so.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne question was asked, just one.
I am a Christian. I believe firstly the revelation of God to man. The revelation of God to man in the Bible SAYS plainly that the universe had a beginning in Genesis 1:1. That I have to take on faith & trust. No one was there to witness it.
Aside from that a good number of cosmologist have come to believe the evidence also points to a beginning of the universe.
I know that there are those who do not agree.
So there you have it. An actual infinity of things, including time, is not known. So that is why I am inclined to believe time and space had a beginning too.
Now you don't have to launch into 20 posts about contrarian views on multiple universes, set theory, or oscillating or steady state theories. You don't like quotations and arguments from authority anyway. So no need to start trying to impress me that some people argue against a beginning to the universe. I know that.
And its no use asking you to take a position on it because you will just buckle down safely in your agnosticism.
Deep Thought, I think sonship's "holocaust denier" comparison/accusations was an insult calculated to shut you up (in terms of talking to him, anyway. He used it on me once too).
The more I see sonship operate, the more I think that his 'ministry' is a huge and sometimes slightly unhinged vanity project, and that what he would really, really like - ideally - is to be allowed to soliloquize unchallenged and for people to be grateful.
One might explain the holocaust barb as an (admittedly preposterous) indication of his passion and sincerity, but I think it's an indication that, just under the skin, his ideology and outlook are deeply nasty and lacking a recognizable moral compass; and your defiance/dissent the other day got under his skin and his true colours were on display.
Let us not forget that his god is a torturer god and that all his attempts to explain the notions of morality he derives from it rely on gross Orwellian perversions of words' meanings, and when the heart of darkness is finally reached we see the essence of his theology is little more than a vengeful gangsterism.
His holocaust barb was sonship telling you to get lost and stop trampling on the propagation of his ugly self-sanctified and ridiculously elaborate vanity.
22 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFYou may well be right. Either he is a good person and will feel repentance or he is a bad person and will not. One way or the other I will never forgive him for that and will never engage him in debate again. If you are right and God exists then I'm sure that God will remind him of this. If God doesn't exist he will simply cease to exist when the inevitable happens. He has not even tried to apologize so if God exists and is anything like the God he believes in he's burning for the rest of time for being an atrocious hypocrite. Either way I think I'm winning this one.
Deep Thought, I think sonship's "holocaust denier" comparison/accusations was an insult calculated to shut you up (in terms of talking to him, anyway. He used it on me once too).
The more I see sonship operate, the more I think that his 'ministry' is a huge and sometimes slightly unhinged vanity project, and that what he would really, really like - ideally - ...[text shortened]... stop trampling on the propagation of his ugly self-sanctified and ridiculously elaborate vanity.
22 Sep 16
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHypothetically if there were no gold in China, you would have to know the type and location of every atom in China to be able to make the claim, with certainty that there is no gold in China. So basically even if there were no gold in China you would not be able to make that claim due to a lack of knowledge. So what makes you think that you have sufficient knowledge to make the claim, with certainty, that God does not exist in the entire universe?
Its very simple:
1. There is actually gold in China.
2. If there was no gold in China, the fact that I would not be able to know that there was no gold in China has no bearing on the fact that I know there is no God.
Merely assuming that your questions somehow demonstrate that I shouldn't be able to say it with a straight face is simply not good enoug ...[text shortened]... ate your remarkably poor reasoning.
Or do you actually believe God is an atom of gold in China?