Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Ingledsva]

If that is what you think then you don't know the context of the quote you were referring to in telling me that I'm supposed to shake the dust off my feet.

You need to go back up and follow the sequence.

I was replying to someone else - with a Bible verse reference, - and YOU decided it meant YOU.

And I assure you I know the context,

*

 

[Storm]

@Sonofason
Actually, this isn't your house. This is a community in cyberspace. And that sort of response - trying to use the letter to defeat the spirit - is much more Pharisee than Christian.

 

[Dr. Strange]

I'm having trouble making a comparison. I am supposed to be comparing what (with) what from that quote. Again, I'll repeat that part of the quote I'm having trouble with. It doesn't seem like a complete comparison. One must compare something either with or to something else. There is not "with" and there is no "to" to delineate those things that are being asked to be compared.

"...Compare what happens when we observe the movements and actions of what happens when we observe the movements and actions of human beings,..."

The movements and actions observed of man shows us two things, negatives or affirmations. Affirmations tells us what or who someone is and how to distinguish someone from others. Whereas, negatives distinguishes from others but does not tell us what they are. God is then the latter, observed through negative observation. We do not know anything about God.

Hence, to believe in God is by faith alone, not through knowledge or, one's belief. Most see faith as their belief, their religion and what they are taught. This is far removed from what faith originally was about. Most Christians no longer understand what Christianity was about.

 

[Cephus]

Do you not see the resemblance between the words theory and theoretical. Theories are theoretical.

Which just shows how ignorant you are on the scientific usage of words. Anyone surprised?

 

[Robert.Evans]

If you expect clarity in my answers ...

... please offer clarity in your questions.

Thanks.

That's Bert, where's Ernie?

 

[Robert.Evans]

What if god was created in the same way?

Through luck and magic? I don't have much problem with that. I see God as an Existence that evolves and develops as it does, which to that, is natural, from simple to complex. What comes from that is our understanding of God. Consciousness and understanding develops. We are the result of that. We are that.

The universe and "god" are intertwined in my belief.

I agree, but it is reflective, so not the inner part, but the outer. It is like saying you are an adult now, so where is the child. Nice eh?

And I specifically do NOT believe that they created us with an intentional forethought. They exist along side us. Just as we do not intentionally create with every specific instance of our children I do not believe god created it.

Not originally, but later yes.... it takes time, a long time, that is why we see time here

Imagine the AMAZING chance that YOU or ME or ANYONE exists in the form they do! The chances that you got exactly the DNA from your mother and father to create yourself. Along with all of the potential mutations that did or did not occur. And then we do that again but double it for both of your parents. And then quadruple it again for your grandparents. And then again for your great grandparents. And then the chances of the epigentic causes that shaped the genes they passed on which are all based on the random events of someone's life.

It is truly amazing, yes

There was no specific intelligence required for these chances. Just the way our life moves on. The number of "possible" ways you could have existed just going back a few generations and simply based on genetics alone is beyond the number of stars in our universe. How is that for crazy?

Yet no one had to design that.

I don't think it is designed as such, I think it is evolving consciousness. This is the development of God, and it is infinite and varied. At this point it is physical, and that is us. But the universe also has complete autonomy from the higher consciounsness that it comes from, so it develops as it does based on what it already is.

In short, evolving conscousness in varied forms, varied layers, each having liberty from the one before, but, like a child, following its parentage. Thus he knows the beginning from the end.

 

[Shad]

I'll look into it further.

Think along the lines of physics and astronomy which is mostly math based on many short term observations of a single or multiple objects. Short term relative to the age of stars, planets, etc and our limited life span. For example the Big Freeze, heat death, of the universe is based on the current data of the expansion of the universe, dark matter, mass and gravity. We have no miniature universe to experiment on so we create one in a mathematical model in a computer simulation as a representative universe.

Keep in mind often scientific papers and explanations when communicated to the masses, laymen, is dumbed down. A lot of the technical jargon is trimmed down for the sake of expediency. This will cause confusion and conflict when any confusion or trimmed down terminology is taken as fact itself.

 

[Robert.Evans]

1.) Non-theists are not the ones claiming that the universe is the result of supernatural intelligence. This is the province of theists. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. The correct formulation would run more like:

Non-theists keep waiting for theists to show that intelligence is the answer.

2.) Who is suggesting that it was magic?

3.) Can you please explain the difference between "God dunnit" and "magic?"



How about this: You have not demonstrated that it is God.



If you won the lottery, you'd refuse the money because the odds were too mind-boggling?



Ahem. How about "WE DON'T KNOW?"



Argument From Ignorance



I can't speak for everyone who doubts the claims being made by theists, but I'm quite content to simply say that the arguments being made by theists are not convincing.



If you come to my door selling Snake Oil, and I refuse to purchase it, why should I have to offer up an alternative (non-) answer to compete with your hoodoo voodoo?

It's quite enough to slam the door in your face. I don't owe you an explanation.



Hmm. What shall "they" conclude when "they" notice that you physically typed your argument out on your computer?

So in short, ''you don't know'' .....haha. Okay. Took a long time to say it. I wonder why you think it is not God then if you don't know!?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I saw no one "design" any of the complexity. I have seen two people enact the process that create a human being. Watched as a human being grew up from that process and NO DESIGNER WAS TO BE FOUND.

And yet it has amazing complexity. Where was the designer that created the astronomical odds that created me? Where was he a generation ago? Where was he moments prior to my conception? Where will he be during my own children's lives? That is the problem I have with your assumption. Are we nothing more than marionettes dancing on strings? Or robots programmed without will functioning to the will of a designer?

Or do we have our own free will and our own ability to let process go?

I say we have freewill, but are unlikely to use it as we follow what we already are, the child to the adult

 

[Robert.Evans]

What I speak of is not what I believe. What you mean to say is that there is a Cause and Effect (Creation). I speak from theological knowledge and science. That something can come from nothing is scientifically possible. If, that which is spoken of as a singularity is the Cause then I suppose that singularity comes out of nothing again approaches some intelligent being. I doubt that is the case.

Only if you play with the word 'nothing'. If it is nothing in the fullest sense of the wrod, it can't. Thus there has to be something ( in its broadest meaning)

 

[Robert.Evans]

Chaos brings about something. How is it that bringing about chaos is not something? How is it that Chaos did not bring about life as we know it? Is that not the order you are referring to? And yet, is not our order, chaos?

For chaos to assemble into something that has order is truly remarkable, in anybodies language.

I wasn't asking you to talk about politics. I used it as an example to show chaos exists in our ordered world.

Politics was important to Jesus. As a revolutionary, it was everything. It was justice as is apparent to Judaism. Christians turn justice into salvation. That must be the reason why Christianity no longer follows Jesus' revolution of justice, freedom and equality. Funny how Christians think they know their God.

God has many aspects, even though he is One.

 

[Robert.Evans]

We don't know if the Universe could have been any different than the way it is now. Sure, we can imagine scenarios where the Universe has different laws of physics, but that does not necessarily mean that the Universe could have actually been that way. We don't know enough about the mechanism(s) that brought the Universe into existence to say for sure one way or the other. When you burn hydrogen with oxygen, there are many different ways that one can imagine the oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms to connect with one-another to form an endless variety of molecules. In reality, however, the only molecule you will actually get is water. The laws of quantum mechanics assure that. One can only propose the other molecular possibilities if they don't know the finer workings of molecular bonding. The Universe might be the same way. Chance might not factor into it anymore than it factors into the creation of water from burning hydrogen. We just don't know.

Science does not know, and might never know. But It could not be any different. It is following something that has already happened., that it already is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But you haven't shown that any of the supposed evidence actually points to your imagined cause. All you're doing is using the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, you don't understand how it works, therefore God.

It is only imagined by you to be imagined because you are deluded. Delusions are strong. Looking for evidence in a physical realm will only take you so far. Spiritual discernment is what you need and non-believers do not have it. Do not be offended because you cannot see and therefore assume someone else is wrong

 

[Robert.Evans]

You're the one who doesn't know what logical fallacies are, even though you routinely engage in them. Maybe you ought to get your nose out of that ridiculous Bible of yours and get a real education.

Ignorance is bliss, is an old saying. A ''real education'' will help you here, and then what???

 

[Robert.Evans]

The movements and actions observed of man shows us two things, negatives or affirmations. Affirmations tells us what or who someone is and how to distinguish someone from others. Whereas, negatives distinguishes from others but does not tell us what they are. God is then the latter, observed through negative observation. We do not know anything about God.

We know plenty about God... he reveals it to us through his creation, even without spiritual discernment one can see that. We also know his son, and anyone who knows the son knows the Father.

Hence, to believe in God is by faith alone, not through knowledge or, one's belief. Most see faith as their belief, their religion and what they are taught. This is far removed from what faith originally was about. Most Christians no longer understand what Christianity was about.

To believe in God is through gnosis, God given. That is the Grace of God. Faith is the conviction of the person as the outer evidence of an inner change. Faith was instead of works. They were not telling them to believe in something they had no evidence for, that would have been ludicrous

 

[Robert.Evans]

Which just shows how ignorant you are on the scientific usage of words. Anyone surprised?

You have 666 messages on that post. Anyone surprised... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

They've learned a new phrase but don't know what it means yet.

It is not ignorance of "what" it is the construct of: "I don't know the cause, so God must have done it."

And what is wrong with taking the obvious answer.
Things are complicated, so something with intelligence must have created it. Why not. Till proved otherwise.... lest you have a problem with God do you....hmmm

Your answer seems to be, ''I don't know the cause, but whatever it is, it isn't God. Yeah, that's solid!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually they are not, if you go to the OED, you will find that sense in which you want to use theory does not exist:

Definition of theory in English:
noun (plural theories)
supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution

principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education [mass noun]: music theory

idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject

You can only find "theory" in the sense that you are desirous of using it in lesser tomes, and your shopping for a definition that you like, rather that accepting what was meant by the authors, e.g., "scientific theory," is a dishonest form of quote mining, a dishonest undertaking to begin with.

I think we all know there are two meanings... but if we consider the first line, it does say ''a system of ideas intended to explain something'' and then goes onto say ''especially'' so therefore not just specifically. So what is the argument about.

Mountain out of a molehill I say

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm obviously wading in in the middle, but....

Faith is a trust that transcends logic. It's inherently incapable of being logical, whatever it's placed in.

The problem with this sort of thing isn't so much that it's wrong, as that it assumes pure logic is the only valid reason to accept a concept.

Faith is not logical nor illogical, rational nor irrational. It is A-logical, A-rational. And there's not a damn thing wrong with that, so stop trying to pretend it's something it's not.

Transcends human logic, yes.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Your construct of, "if you can't come up with something else it must be ID." could be used as the very definition of an argument from ignorance.

Since you're a lazy one, here you go:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience.

The general form of the argument is as follows.

• Minor premise: One can't imagine (or has not imagined) how P could be so.
• Major premise (unstated): If P, then one could imagine (or would have imagined) how P could be so.
• Conclusion: Not-P.

As a syllogism this is valid. The fallacy lies in the unstated major premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Moreover, if no one has yet managed to imagine how a state of affairs is possible, it doesn't follow that no one will ever be able to.

The evidence is within, and is therefore not from ignorance... that is what comes from the atheist.
You see, those who understand an argument, are usually seen as the ones who understand, not the one's who don't, except, it seems, in this subject and by atheists... haha