against intelligent creator?

[Unveiled Artist]

No.

Thank you for being blunt. Since we are in a debate forum, and to me personally, debates are when you're interested and want to learn about the other party, do you want to understand the other person's point of view?

If not, what's the use of debate? (Conversation of opposing viewpoints)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can't quote the post. I think you left out a [ tag somewhere.

 

[omega2xx]

Wait... You actually say these two contradictory things in the exact same post? So, which one is it? No proof, or proof? If there's proof, where is it?

Th proof can't be validated---A creation requires an Creator---The heavens are declaring the glory of God.

 

[omega2xx]

See, this is exactly what I meant by blind, unquestioning adherence to irrational, unsubstantiated, and arbitrary assertions made up by self-appointed middlemen who presumed to speak on god's behalf. The bible was just one of many of man's attempt to perform a ventriloquist act with god, placing their own words in his mouth.
If there is a god, such a being would be of pure love and pure logic, therefore anything devoid of either compassion or reason cannot be of god. Why would he gift us with intelligence only to expect us to forgo its use?

You are not qualified to be the final word on what is logic. You don't understand Christianity enough to objectively criticize it.

 

[omega2xx]

No, you have it backwards. The ACLU defends attacks upon people's rights and freedoms. No one is trying to remove all reference to Christianity out of public life, only in cases where government violates the the separation of church and state. The government is supposed to represent all citizens, which mean that it shouldn't be favoring or advocating for any faith above another. How would you feel if your tax dollars were used to buy Korans to distribute in public schools?

And fundamentalists most certainly do try to restrict people's rights, specifically LGBT rights and women's rights.

You don't know what a fundamentalist is, so your statement is wrong.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1. Your reply missed a [ so I put it in sections.

You can let god lead you to trust and take out the MY and replace it with HIS.

Or you can say MY which means you own the trust in god not god defining it for you.

There is a huge difference between your purpose and his.

A. So, do you trust yourself and your purpose or do you instead trust god's purpose and trust god only no one else not even yourself?

2. If feelings are deceptive then you are taking the bible at face value without crediting what you get from the bible to your experiences you received from god?

You're discrediting your experiences that are from god?

Many believers don't distinguish their feelings from god's as a believer. When god speaks to them, they know it.

3. Your purpose is to glorify god? What is god's purpose for you?

Which should it be first, your purpose for god or god's purpose for you?

-

I mean, my purpose to the spirits is to get to know my past, my environment, and ancestry. The spirits purpose for me (if one likes) is that I get to know my family today while they are living first. It's hard to listen to another person's purpose for you rather than stick the "my" in. Takes a lot of conditioning and discipline.

4. How can you submit to god's will if you are holding on to your purpose and not god's?

I know that sounds like pulling strings but it really isn't. Either you are following god for your purpose or for god's. I just feel from my experience, once you put "My" in there you invalidate the owner of your experience and purpose which is from god. It's like a brother and sister of christ (the family/body) saying "This is what I Personally believe". This separates them from the body because the body thinks as a unit.

5. I actually never agreed to "believing in one's heart and all of the sudden you're saved." I agree with Catholic (all liturgical churches) view that there is a process or sacramental initiation before one becomes part of the body of Christ. Just as you can't just "be a Jew", you can't just "be a christian." You can follow jesus teachings, of course. Eclectics, New Agers, and so forth do it all the time. Taking his sacraments are totally different story.

6. I'm trying to piece the post together. You are stating god exists as a fact because you have a physical bible. I am saying god does not exist as a physical fact because of multiple resources not just science but the study of history, psychology, and just human nature in general. God exists-not as an entity. He exists through the culture, nature, and language of people before you. Anything outside of language, history, and culture is all new age.

Of course culture, language, and traditions shape your life. That's how religions start is through these things. The more years go on, the less important CLT are to where everyone is talking in metaphysics instead of the English Language.

You're standing on the history and religions of Pagans. Religions of people that originated in their given country before the major religion took over (Islam, Christian, whomever).

Christianity isn't isolated.

But, yes, if it wasn't based on culture, language, and tradition, I can't see how it would shape someone's life. We need these things for religion to exist. For some people, they need these things to define how god exists to them. It's human nature.

7. Maybe you're older in age? I know I love to look into things like Maslow and all of that because it shows me human nature. I can see people's need for love (hence why people want god to love them) because after awhile, when parents die, and family disperse, where can one go?

I would have loved to gone into theology, psychology, archeology, and all of that mixed into one. But I'm just at awe at how believers don't see it.

Beats me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I know this wasn't for me, but...

I have admitted I can't prove the existence of God. Will you admit you can't prove He does not exist?

There is proof that God exist, you just don't accept it.

There is proof of god you just can't prove there is?

You can't prove there is a god but still say there is proof there is one?

 

[suncowiam]

Not only is it not mandated, it is against the constitution to mix church and state. That is a good thing and I hope all Christians realize that.

Glad to see we're agreeing.

 

[omega2xx]

I know this wasn't for me, but...




There is proof of god you just can't prove there is?

You can't prove there is a god but still say there is proof there is one?

What is so hard to udnerstand that all proofs can't be verified, but they are still proofs.

 

[omega2xx]

Glad to see we're agreeing.

Me too. Conservative Christians don't get much agreement in this forum, but that is fine. I came knowing I would get much more disagreement than agreements.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How do you know your principles are right? Do you ever violated your principles

My principals are right because they include attempting to do the least harm with my existence. For instance, I became vegan. I have violated my principles, under conditions of extreme emotion - which is why my principles have been modified over time to also include being steadfast and of great fortitude in dealing with my emotions. I'll let God know if I ever need his advice on whether or not I am behaving fairly toward my fellow humans and the world. Oh wait... God isn't around to ask... at all... ever. So I guess I'll stick to relying on the reactions and advice of my fellow humans and the world. Things that do exist, that are around, and that give some great feedback in this area.

If so what are teh consequences?

This one is easy. The consequences are guilt, and a sense of uneasiness and the inability to feel happy, or even content, until I put things right. It's called a conscience. Do you have one of these?

 

[Darkstorn]

What is so hard to udnerstand that all proofs can't be verified, but they are still proofs.

Proof is a logical concept. They are ALWAYS verified, or they are not proof. You are talking about evidence. How is this so hard to understand?

Anyway: How do you verify the existence of "unverified proofs" if they are by definition unverifiable? Your comment is analogous to you admitting that you're merely making a guess of their existence and using it as an argument against others. That's just plain intellectually lazy.

So i repeat: How is a proof that's not verified proof in ANY way? And try not to answer by changing known word definitions again, please.

/E: Evidence CAN be unverified. But you can't know that there's such unverified evidence, until you verify it. Then you have evidence, that you can literally show us.

You cannot make empty claims that "there's evidence, i just don't know where to find it." It's just plain stupid. You don't know that there is, because you haven't been there to verify that there is unverified evidence...

It does not reinforce your claims in ANY way. It's equal to proselytizing, not a proper debate. It's something that can be dismissed without evidence, because YOU don't have any evidence for your claims...

 

[omega2xx]

My principals are right because they include attempting to do the least harm with my existence. For instance, I became vegan. I have violated my principles, under conditions of extreme emotion - which is why my principles have been modified over time to also include being steadfast and of great fortitude in dealing with my emotions. I'll let God know if I ever need his advice on whether or not I am behaving fairly toward my fellow humans and the world. Oh wait... God isn't around to ask... at all... ever. So I guess I'll stick to relying on the reactions and advice of my fellow humans and the world. Things that do exist, that are around, and that give some great feedback in this area.

I was mainly asking about your moral principles. Becoming vegan or not becoming vegan is not a moral decision.

This one is easy. The consequences are guilt, and a sense of uneasiness and the inability to feel happy, or even content, until I put things right. It's called a conscience. Do you have one of these?

Everyone has a conscience but what the conscience accepts as good or bad is not the same in everyone. How do you know yours is right?

 

[Darkstorn]

Becoming vegan or not becoming vegan is not a moral decision.

It can be. Try arguing my claim.

 

[omega2xx]

Proof is a logical concept. They are ALWAYS verified, or they are not proof. You are talking about evidence. How is this so hard to understand?

Anyway: How do you verify the existence of "unverified proofs" if they are by definition unverifiable? Your comment is analogous to you admitting that you're merely making a guess of their existence and using it as an argument against others. That's just plain intellectually lazy.

So i repeat: How is a proof that's not verified proof in ANY way? And try not to answer by changing known word definitions again, please.

/E: Evidence CAN be unverified. But you can't know that there's such unverified evidence, until you verify it. Then you have evidence, that you can literally show us.

You cannot make empty claims that "there's evidence, i just don't know where to find it." It's just plain stupid. You don't know that there is, because you haven't been there to verify that there is unverified evidence...

It does not reinforce your claims in ANY way. It's equal to proselytizing, not a proper debate. It's something that can be dismissed without evidence, because YOU don't have any evidence for your claims...

IMO a creation requires a Creator. The universe is the evidence of God that I accept.

IMO a creation that works perfectly all the time, requires an intelligent Designer. Gravity and many other scientifically proved process is my evidence that God was the designer of ur universe.

The fact that you don't accept this evidence, does not make it not evidence. unless you can prove all of these things happened or are eternal.

IMO, I have much more evidence than you do for what you believe, which is nothing.

 

[omega2xx]

It can be.

How?

Try arguing my claim.

I will try when you have explained how becoming vegan is a moral decision.

 

[Darkstorn]

IMO a creation requires a Creator. The universe is the evidence of God that I accept.

You're welcome to your opinion, and i support it. But it's just that, remember it.

IMO a creation that works perfectly all the time, requires an intelligent Designer. Gravity and many other scientifically proved process is my evidence that God was the designer of ur universe.

I have no problem with this if you admit it being an opinion, and you do.

The fact that you don't accept this evidence, does not make it not evidence. unless you can prove all of these things happened or are eternal.

What evidence? You just talked about your opinions. By definition, your opinions cannot be compelling evidence. And judging from what i see, you're still not using the same definitions for "evidence" and "proof" as others are. I'm using the dictionary definitions.

And the burden of proof is on you if you make claims. I am not making claims about creation or creators, you'll notice. I am not even demanding evidence of you. I am merely doing this:

Pointing out that YOUR COMMENT was factually incorrect. I am not talking about your views. Only how you presented them.

IMO, I have much more evidence than you do for what you believe, which is nothing.

At least you admit it being an opinion. But you are making an assumption about me without knowing anything about me: I didn't argue against the existence of god(s.)

How are you qualified to judge my person? I didn't present my views, or even my beliefs in any way. I was arguing your comments, not your beliefs. You are trying to distort this into about MY beliefs now.

Why?

You didn't even address any of the points i made, really. You just said what you wanted to say, and they have very little bearing on what i actually said. I think you're proselytizing instead of debating.

How?



I will try when you have explained how becoming vegan is a moral decision.

I didn't say it IS a moral decision. That's an absolute statement. You're quick to make such statements, but i made no such thing: I said that it CAN be.

And it can: You can base your veganism on your moral codes. For example; Most vegans i know are vegans because of their morality: They abhor eating animals for the SOLE reason that it requires the animal to be dead. They don't like killing animals, or even knowing that they are supporting such behavior. Not because they prefer food that's barely usable to humans without supplements anyway...

I would say people can become vegans based on the moral decision. It is a decision after all, and you can base your decision on anything. Even blind faith like you seem to be doing.

FYI: I am not a vegan.

 

[suncowiam]

Me too. Conservative Christians don't get much agreement in this forum, but that is fine. I came knowing I would get much more disagreement than agreements.

With all respect, disagreements should be the norm in a world with free will and then in a country with freedom of expression.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is so hard to udnerstand that all proofs can't be verified, but they are still proofs.

Proofs, by definition, are tools used to verify a claim (for example). If it cannot be used to verify a claim, it isn't proof.

The claim is god exists. There is proof he does not as an entity. There is proof "he" does exist by language, culture, and tradition. The proof verifies his (or the) existence of god in the latter and I can show he does not in the former.

It is funny, though. Just because it is religious and many many people believe in god does not make it more true than thousands of people believing an invisible pen is in my hand even when I show them there is not. The complexity of how people make god seem does not mean he is complex by definition. I can't remember what it is called, but there is a term for believing something is true because more than a handful of people believe it is rather than understanding the claim by evaluating things beyond synchronicities and personal experiences.

Plus, you have to prove that what you have are proofs first of the claim to see if it makes sense or can verify the claim. Everyone says god is unknowable, believed by faith, invisible, cosmos, we have limited knowledge, and so forth.

You guys are making god too complex than what it is.

Shrugs.

 

[omega2xx]

Proof is a logical concept. They are ALWAYS verified, or they are not proof. You are talking about evidence. How is this so hard to understand?

Anyway: How do you verify the existence of "unverified proofs" if they are by definition unverifiable? Your comment is analogous to you admitting that you're merely making a guess of their existence and using it as an argument against others. That's just plain intellectually lazy.

If you remember I qualified that statement. They are not verifiable to non-Christians. I KNOW GOD EXISTS. It is intellectually lazy or intellectual pride that makes you think you are intelligent enough to know there is evidence that you don'[t accept because of you lack of understanding.

So i repeat: How is a proof that's not verified proof in ANY way? And try not to answer by changing known word definitions again, please.

You accept that evolution has been proved and you certainly don't have any scientific evidence to support that guess. Proof is not dependent on if it is believed.

/E: Evidence CAN be unverified. But you can't know that there's such unverified evidence, until you verify it. Then you have evidence, that you can literally show us.

The universe is my evidence. Explain how it came into being without a Creator.

You cannot make empty claims that "there's evidence, i just don't know where to find it." It's just plain stupid. You don't know that there is, because you haven't been there to verify that there is unverified evidence...

That is an amusing statement for one who accepts that evolution is true. Use your own standard. Have you or anyone else been there to verify the claims of evolution? And I have been there. AT one time I did not know if God existed, something happened and now I know for certain He does.

It does not reinforce your claims in ANY way. It's equal to proselytizing, not a proper debate. It's something that can be dismissed without evidence, because YOU don't have any evidence for your claims...

You also don't understand "proselytizing." Have I ask you to believe anything?