Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Robert.Evans]

You seem to have forgotten the subject.



Which is why I started off with -

1. Jesus isn't God.

*

Are you speaking of past tense or now? He is now!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you?

Sure. I can accept what's actually going on.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sure. I can accept what's actually going on.

By that you mean what you see, the physical. You seem to have a problem with the metaphysical. It makes me wonder how you cope with science theory.... do you think they are all idiots perhaps

 

[savagewind]

Are you referring to "nature"?

Nature decribes the phenomenon on Earth. Nature does not decribe the cosmos with it. There is nature and there is the cosmos. What is the word for all of it working together?

 

[savagewind]

The words nature and universe are nouns. What is the action word which describes the symbiotic relationship everywhere you look at nature and the universe? I think believers call it creating. But creating needs a creator. Most action verbs that might describe what is going on are related to participation with some kind of intelligence. But according to atheists it isn't that. What is it? Why is what is so smart? I can hear a singing "it isn't smart". OK I can go with that. Then what is it? One word. What is the word?

Why is what is so smart. How hard is that? I think you have to read it until it flows. It flows. Haha Does it not flow? Oh. Is it too bumpy? Try reading it in pairs. They say it hurts their heads.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nature decribes the phenomenon on Earth. Nature does not decribe the cosmos with it. There is nature and there is the cosmos. What is the word for all of it working together?

It ranges from the mystical magical 'naturaldidit' to 'luck' to 'I don't know'. I think that is it. Even if we include the multiverse that may exist, what then is that and where did it come from. Same problem. Here is a picture of me ahaha

 

[Robert.Evans]

The words nature and universe are nouns. What is the action word which describes the symbiotic relationship everywhere you look at nature and the universe? I think believers call it creating. But creating needs a creator. Most action verbs that might describe what is going on are related to participation with some kind of intelligence. But according to atheists it isn't that. What is it? Why is what is so smart? I can hear a singing "it isn't smart". OK I can go with that. Then what is it? One word. What is the word?

Why is what is so smart. How hard is that? I think you have to read it until it flows. It flows. Haha Does it not flow? Oh. Is it too bumpy? Try reading it in pairs. They say it hurts their heads.

.... I like the first part, very profound; my head hurts with the last part.... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Considering we have a perfectly good answer for the TOE (the theory of everything) I wonder why they don't accept it, till something better comes along that is. They don't even give a theory in place of ours. (don't forget there are two meanings to theory) haha

 

[Twilight Hue]

By that you mean what you see, the physical. You seem to have a problem with the metaphysical. It makes me wonder how you cope with science theory.... do you think they are all idiots perhaps

Theoretical science is based on already established fact on which such theories are based.

 

[savagewind]

I think it is OK to admit to one's self there is no reason for the universe's beginning. But to insist on it for everyone is very bad I think. If you see no reason then fine. If you see reason fine too. But some people who see no reason insist everyone should see no reason. Why? Why is it wrong to see reason in the universe?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Theoretical science is based on already established fact on which such theories are based.

Based on, correct, but not fact... so idiots??? After all, where is their evidence? It appears they have none, as it is a theory in both senses of the word. So why not attack them?
And what is this mystical property that brings everything into being? Care to take a stab at it? The best we've had so far is: ''I don't know''.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think it is OK to admit to one's self there is no reason for the universe's beginning. But to insist on it for everyone is very bad I think. If you see no reason then fine. If you see reason fine too. But some people who see no reason insist everyone should see no reason. Why? Why is it wrong to see reason in the universe?

Good.
The bottom line? They are going to die, and they want you to also...... it is deeply spiritual.

 

[Robert.Evans]

~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yet we are told by atheists that luck is just fine, luck will do it all... except they are not even honest enough to themselves to see that is the answer. They stick it under the banner of ''Natural'' and think they have the answer to all things; yet their life is not one day longer than before for all their worldly wisdom.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it is OK to admit to one's self there is no reason for the universe's beginning. But to insist on it for everyone is very bad I think. If you see no reason then fine. If you see reason fine too. But some people who see no reason insist everyone should see no reason. Why? Why is it wrong to see reason in the universe?

It is 'o.k. to hold that view, yes, but it is not logical. We don't have an 'empty room', it's bad theorizing.

 

[Desert Snake]

The non-theist "gap" is their problem, not ours.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't think you really know what argument from ignorance really means. It means there is no logical conclusion to theory in a context from which we don't have proof or a lot of evidence, not that anything you personally cannot configure a sequential chain of possible or likely occurrences is therefore off limits to theory or belief.
Secondly, you are theorizing a state of nothing into something by not having an idea of cause. Again, your blank, your gap, is not my problem. What I observe leads me to certain theories, you don't have to think about these things at all, but you need to have logical reasons to present as refutation.

Then again, think about all the actual 'arguments from ignorance' that science presents, are you saying that they have to be proven? Should I discount them offhand? Why not?
Anyways, I'm leaving the conversation here.

There are no arguments from ignorance in science, science as a discipline is designed to prevent that from occurring. Now, that does not mean that the correct answer is always arrived at, just the most probable answer for the state of knowledge at a given moment. As science progresses the body of knowledge grows and the level of probability goes up because multiple threads of data unify from separate unfalsifiable hypothesis into coherent theories. This is what has happened, for example, with Darwinian Evolution ... modern genetics has provided such clear support of what had already been learned from taxonomy, paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative immunology and similar fields.

You can leave the conversation whenever you wish, but lets not pretend that you are doing so for any reason other than your complete inability to make a logical inroad into the scientific method, all you can do is bloviate and lie, and bloviate and lie, until (you hope) by sheer repetition people will begin to believe your claque's god of the gaps approach to obfuscation built on a house of cards argument from ignorance. Please rest assured that we will be here to debunk your crap. If you decide not to run off into the night with your tail between your legs, try, please, to come back with something that is more rational and logical. It's been fun.

 

[Sapiens]

Cephus

let us try and clarify the point by using inductive reasoning.

1. The definition of "Supernatural" is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. in accordance to an accredited dictionary. FACT

It is a fact that "supernatural" must, by definition, be attributed to something outside of (not beyond, but outside of) the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are LAWS and thus inviolable, hence the "supernatural" does not exist except in your imagination.

2. A "Thought" is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature (see premise 1). It is familiar to everyone, however, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created (see link to Wiki). It is an unknown quantity that falls within the definition of premise 1. FACT

Since, Premise one has been disproved we may ignore Premise 2.

3. In accordance to premise 1 and 2 a thought is a supernatural event, therefore, your statement "You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the metaphysical. You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the supernatural" is a nonsensical prevarication that should insight you into an apology to Savagewind.

Since Premise 1 has been disproven and Premise 2 may be ignored Premise 3 can be considered to be horse puckey and no apology need be tendered for Cephus' critique of Savagewind's applogia.

Furthermore

1. God is, according to atheists, and unknown Being unexplainable by naturalistic laws. FACT

No, that is not a fact.

2. God is therefore a supernatural, metaphysical entity, just as a thought is. FACT.

No, that is a logical fallacy since no god has been shown to exist.

3. It is a fact that we think, therefore, it must follow that God must be a fact as well and our thoughts a part of our spirit.

That is a non sequitur since the premises have not been demonstrated but merely presented as unsupported and unsupportable claims.

It all clicks into place, logically and rationally, it is called the Plan of Redemption.

No it does not, your premises have not been demonstrated.

 

[Sapiens]

Who is we? Are you claiming the status of a scientist? If you are then why are you not familiar with the general consensus of the scientific community.

Yes ... I claim that status ... do you?

Thought

• Thought (disambiguation).
  
  Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Thoughts are the result or product of either spontaneous or willed acts of thinking.
  
  Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins, processes, and effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.

Thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You suggest that I ought to stop listening to people who have no idea, yet it seems that you have either not researched it prior to posting or it is you who is listening to people who have no idea.




Now it is you who seems to be trying to wriggle your way out of this blunder by suggesting that you have a greater authority to define the words "metaphysical" and "supernatural". You are the first atheist that I have seen bringing a dictionary into disrepute in favour of your own definition. If it is all the same to you, I will stick with the dictionaries definition that supernatural is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

No, I'd say that the words like "metaphysical" and "supernatural" are just a form of an argument from ignorance. That is, after-all, the only way to attempt to support them. They are headed to the dung heap of knowledge. They will live a little longer as more things are learned, but they've lost much in the last few centuries and will continue to shrink.

Oh, if it cannot be explained using sciences known naturalistic laws then it is supernatural. As soon as Crick and Watson discovered DNA they ran into the pub next door shouting that they had found the meaning of life. There was no point at which we knew it was there but didn't know what it was. It was discovered. You really need to do some research. Isn't it funny that those atheists on here who know this have not picked you up on this. Isn't that dishonest?

You have not idea of what actually when on. Look into what Peter Pauling had to say.

No, you haven't. You have just made baseless assertions.

No he has simply refused to participate in your arguments from ignorance, as any straight thinking person should.

God is unknown by you and your clan, and guess what atheists call Him. Yes, a supernatural, metaphysical being having no evidence to suggest he exists. You are making this to (sic) easy.

God is unknown by you and your clan, you have no way of demonstrating that he/she/it is anything other than a figment of your imagination. The Flying Spaghetti Monster demonstrates that.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

I'd apply the aphorism to you and your fellow travelers.

Even if God slapped you across the face with a wet fish you would still deny his existence.

No, the next time a god "slaps me across the face with a wet fish" by supernatural manipulation in violation of natural law, I promise you, I will become a believer.

You are one of the fence sitters in the war in heaven. You cannot be saved.

The war is in your own mind, it is not real. Salvation is just an extension of your ego and your inability to concieve of a world without it's most special thing: you.

That is why I can refute your last point saying that I am shoving my belief down your throat. I do not preach to those who cannot, will not, be saved. I am not here to convert anybody I am here to be tried and tested by those who think they are knowledgeable in the dealings of God but only make fools of themselves by demonstrating their complete ignorance.

All you have succeeded in doing is working yourself up into a frenzy of paranoid persecution and group think with similarly damaged people. That's just the sort of dangerous concoction that has lead to many of the problems in the world today.

I have genuinely never been unable to refute an atheists attack on Christianity. Not a single atheists has left me without a logical and rational answer. I have never lost a point to any atheist. What does that tell you. That I am arrogant, not in the least as it is the spirit of God that guides my hands.

You not presented a single logical or rational answer, not one. All you have done is claim, claim, claim and then spout off that if one does not believe one can not see the the evidence that supports that claim. Emperor's New Clothes anyone?

 

[Ingledsva]

according to John 20 and Heb 1 he is.

Still suggesting that he is flesh though

Neither of these should be translated as Jesus is God.

John 1:1 Within the First Estate/Principle exists the Divine command/Computation/law, and the Divine command/Computation/law exists within the Divinity, and the Divinity exists as the Divine command/Computation/law.

2 The same, exists within the First Estate/Principle (as) within the Divinity.

3 All through It came into being; and separate from its existence not one came to being.

4 Within itself life(spark) existed; and the life(spark) existed to manifest/illuminate the Anthropos/human being.

14 And logos (Divine command/Computation/law,) incased in flesh became, and dwelt among us, and we perceived the glory of the monogenes/sole/singular/special one from the Father, replete with grace/gifts and truth.

It does not say - son - nor does it need to be translated that way. Jesus is claiming to be the Hebrew Messiah - whom is a SINGULAR-SPECIAL- awaited human, sent from God.

*
Heb 1:1 At sundry times and in diverse manners God spoke in the old time to our fathers by the Prophets: in these last days he (GOD) hath spoken unto us by his Son,

Heb 1:8 But moreover to the Son, the throne of Thee oh God, is forever and ever. A staff of righteousness is the scepter of thy reign.

Others have -

Heb 1:8 But moreover to the Son the throne, of THEE oh GOD, is Forever and ever...

Either way it shows Jesus gets the throne of God, - he is NOT God.

As per elsewhere in the Bible - the son gets the throne/rule/judgment. He is not God. The throne is God's to give. If you remember - Jesus sits at the right hand of God. So - Again, obviously he is not God. There is no Trinity in the Bible. Think about it. Why would Jesus sit on a thrown BESIDE GOD, - in heaven, - where there would be no need for three separate parts of the ONE????


*

 

[Serenity7855]

Neither of these should be translated as Jesus is God.

John 1:1 Within the First Estate/Principle exists the Divine command/Computation/law, and the Divine command/Computation/law exists within the Divinity, and the Divinity exists as the Divine command/Computation/law.

2 The same, exists within the First Estate/Principle (as) within the Divinity.

3 All through It came into being; and separate from its existence not one came to being.

4 Within itself life(spark) existed; and the life(spark) existed to manifest/illuminate the Anthropos/human being.

14 And logos (Divine command/Computation/law,) incased in flesh became, and dwelt among us, and we perceived the glory of the monogenes/sole/singular/special one from the Father, replete with grace/gifts and truth.

It does not say - son - nor does it need to be translated that way. Jesus is claiming to be the Hebrew Messiah - whom is a SINGULAR-SPECIAL- awaited human, sent from God.

*
Heb 1:1 At sundry times and in diverse manners God spoke in the old time to our fathers by the Prophets: in these last days he (GOD) hath spoken unto us by his Son,

Heb 1:8 But moreover to the Son, the throne of Thee oh God, is forever and ever. A staff of righteousness is the scepter of thy reign.

Others have -

Heb 1:8 But moreover to the Son the throne, of THEE oh GOD, is Forever and ever...

Either way it shows Jesus gets the throne of God, - he is NOT God.

As per elsewhere in the Bible - the son gets the throne/rule/judgment. He is not God. The throne is God's to give. If you remember - Jesus sits at the right hand of God. So - Again, obviously he is not God. There is no Trinity in the Bible. Think about it. Why would Jesus sit on a thrown BESIDE GOD, - in heaven, - where there would be no need for three separate parts of the ONE????


*

Well, I have to agree. The trinity is not something I believe in. I believe in the Godhead, that is, God the father, His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, separate and distinct in nature and being. God and Jesus Christ having bodies of flesh and bones that is self perpetuating without corrupting blood in the veins but pure spirit, and the Holy Ghost being a spirit whose influence fills the immensity of space making it possible for all those, worthy enough, to tap into that vast knowledge and influence. That belief suits me and fits into the perfect plan of salvation. I ask nobody to follow my belief. For me it is rational and logical, to someone else it might be utter drivel. The trinity and God incarnate is not mentioned in the Bible, anywhere. In my opinion it is not even inferred. It is a concept created by the founding fathers some 300 years after the death of Christ. Superstition old men who sought to control the masses as our governments do today.