How much does the Christian God really love us?

[Enoughie]

It is your thread so the burden of prof is on you.

Another duplicitous claim.

If you claim that I'm a murderer in my thread, the burden of proof is on me to prove that I'm not a murderer?!

If you make an assertion (and especially a mendacious one), the burden of proof is on you.

That you are a hedonist is based on the things you said about homosexual behavior and sex in general. Don't you know what you said about you living for pleasure in this life? If you don't. it is only because you have a selective memory. Being under fire like you are can cause that. You will be reviewing your threads looking for dabar so keep an eye out for your hedonistic statements.

More ad hominem attacks.

Nothing I said about homosexuality demonstrates that I view pleasure as the highest good. I don't.

If you make such a claim, show specific references, and provide evidence!

As of this moment, you provided no evidence to support your malicious attacks on me. Your attacks are nothing but mendacious sophistry.

As for giving you prove or demonstrating the validity of my so called accusations I only have to refer you to your own testimony of how you live your life. Your own wors define your lifestyle so why should I try?

You have no idea of how I live my life. You don't know me personally, nor have any information about how I live my life. Which means this is nothing more then empty rhetoric. More mendacious sophistry.

When you say: "Which means that you are nothing more than a mendacious sophist." you do violate the ethics of the RF which you promised to follow. To be ethical you should have said: "You use dishonest sophistry." If you disagree, push the red button at the top of your post or else bare the shame of your violation of your ethical code of conduct.

Now that I found the forum rules, I see that you're right on this issue, and I will not use that terminology anymore.

However, you are also violating forum rules by misrepresenting my beliefs, and claiming that I'm a hedonist.

"repeated blatant misrepresentation or continual harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated"

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Debunker]

I am not a pantheist. I'm an agnostic. I neither believe that God exists, nor believe that God does not exist. I recognize the fact that a supernatural god cannot exist, because anything that interfere with the laws of nature (physics) would make nature imperfect.

What most people accept is irrelevant to what is true.

At some point most people accepted that the world is flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That is irrelevant to the truth.

God may "transcend" the universe, but God cannot interfere with the laws that govern the universe (nature's laws/god's laws), because that would mean that nature is imperfect.


If nature IS God then neither god created nature nor nature create God. They are one and the same.


Spinoza believed in God, therefore he cannot be an atheist. You consider him an atheist because he did not believe in YOUR "supernatural" god (which I demonstrated cannot exist).


These are your baseless assertions. There is no evidence for the existence of any spirit. And I explained why the existence of a supernatural dimension defies logic - it is self-contradictory.


These are again assertions, that are not necessarily consistent with logic. No one said that the laws of nature were created by man. So this is yet another strawman argument.


A "supernatural" god that interferes with the perfect laws of nature (physics) renders the laws of nature imperfect. Which means such god cannot exist.


The laws of nature (physics) are perfect. Man cannot defy or screw up the laws of physics. Therefore the laws of nature (physics) are perfect.


The claim that we have free will is another baseless assertion. You derive it from your religion, but it has no basis in reality. Nature is deterministic, and we are part of nature. Free will is nothing but an illusion. We are bound by the laws of nature (physics).


Another baseless assertion. My explanation of the God of nature was entirely logical.


Yet another baseless assertion that you have to provide evidence for, and then an ad hominem attack, since you cannot refute the argument.


Unless you show evidence for your fallacious claims, you are nothing but a mendacious sophist.

You have not provided any evidence to justify your ad hominem attacks.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

]I am not a pantheist. I'm an agnostic. I neither believe that God exists, nor believe that God does not exist. I recognize the fact that a supernatural god cannot exist, because anything that interfere with the laws of nature (physics) would make nature imperfect.

What most people accept is irrelevant to what is true.

You mean all that stuff you said about Aquinas was not true? I did not think you knew what you were talking about either.
What most people accept is irrelevant to what is true.

At some point most people accepted that the world is flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. That is irrelevant to the truth.

You mean the world is not flat?

God may "transcend" the universe, but God cannot interfere with the laws that govern the universe (nature's laws/god's laws), because that would mean that nature is imperfect.

If nature is perfect then we waste our time trying to take care of it. Ale Gore would certainly disagree with you. God made the laws and if he needs more laws, he will make these too.

The claim that we have free will is another baseless assertion. You derive it from your religion, but it has no basis in reality. Nature is deterministic, and we are part of nature. Free will is nothing but an illusion. We are bound by the laws of nature (physics).

So then, why are you so angry at me for disagreeing with you? So now you are a stoic are you. I thought you were an agnostic. Yep! You have it all figured out. We just can't help how we think, can we?

Unless you show evidence for your fallacious claims, you are nothing but a mendacious sophist.

You are still having problems with the ethics of this forum, are you?

 

[Enoughie]

You mean the world is not flat?

The world as people knew it - Earth. Earth is not flat.

If nature is perfect then we waste our time trying to take care of it. Ale Gore would certainly disagree with you.

Another specious argument. We are not trying to correct or take care of the laws of nature (physics). The laws of nature (physics) are perfect already.

Nature and its laws are perfect with or without life. The existence of life is not necessary for the existence of nature or the laws of nature to be perfect.

Humans are interested in preserving life. So they are making sure that the planet is habitable. This has nothing to do with the perfection of the laws of nature. It has everything to do with self preservation, which doesn't defy nature's perfection in any way.

If you are incapable of understanding this argument, then I highly doubt your level of intelligence.

God made the laws and if he needs more laws, he will make these too.

Another self-contradictory claim. Adding/changing the laws of nature means that these laws are not perfect, which means your god is not perfect - which means your god doesn't exist.

So then, why are you so angry at me for disagreeing with you?

I am not angry. I'm pointing out the fact that your arguments are based on sophistry.

Dogs also don't have free will, but that doesn't mean that I should let them **** on the carpet.

So now you are a stoic are you. I thought you were an agnostic. Yep! You have it all figured out. We just can't help how we think, can we?

The fact that nature is deterministic doesn't mean that it is static.

You are still having problems with the ethics of this forum, are you?

I read the ethics after writing that comment. As I said, I will not use such terminology again.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

Debunker,

This is your last chance.

Either you provide evidence that I'm a hedonist, or I'm not going to waste any more time on your mendacious sophistry.

Whenever it is time to present evidence, I see only evasiveness and excuses from you. I'm not going to tolerate this any more.

At the same time, I understand that this is typical of the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, intolerance, and ignorance that is inherent in religion.

Since it is nearly impossible to defend religion through logically valid arguments, or with evidence, all that is left is circular logic ("I know Jesus is God because that is what the Bible says") and sophistry. And that is why religion has to be exposed for its delusional and fallacious claims.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[PolyHedral]

Of course. That is what this thread questions. The God of the Bible is the God of the universe. That is the crux of the debate. Tell us how that is circular. Spinoza is what is circular, don't you agree?

No, all reasoning based off of any holy text is circular, because all of the sources that say the holy text X is actually true rely on holy text X. The Bible is worthless as a belief system if it wasn't written by God or those inspired by God, and guess what the only source that it was written by God('s prophets) is?

 

[free spirit]

Since it is nearly impossible to defend religion through logically valid arguments, or with evidence, all that is left is circular logic ("I know Jesus is God because that is what the Bible says") and sophistry.
The evidence of God's existence is all around us to see, in fact you bear the image of God in your person. If you turn the theory of evolution on its head you can get to the truth. Like if you leave a car anywere on the planet in time it goes back to the earth as rust; in other words you do not get sophisticate living things out of mud. But we do have the evidence that all sophisticate living things die and go back to the earth.
One story is true and one is a lie, use your wisdom to make your choise.


And that is why religion has to be exposed for its delusional and fallacious claims.

Yes some of those are delusional and fallacious claims in fact the world is full of them.
But you cannot tell me that my personal experience is a lie, God has rewarded my faith and He has revealed himself to me that He exists. I can only tell you of His character, what you do with that is up to you. But if we truly follow the character of God the world would be a better place, so even if it is delusional and I do no harm, so what is the problem.

Yes some uses God to make money, some to make war, etc, etc. But is that God's fault? You say yes it is his fault, because he has given us free will.

 

[Enoughie]

The evidence of God's existence is all around us to see, in fact you bear the image of God in your person.

This is a specious claim. I can equally say that God's nonexistence is all around us to see, and that our being comes entirely from nature, with no supernatural characteristics whatsoever.

If you turn the theory of evolution on its head you can get to the truth. Like if you leave a car anywere on the planet in time it goes back to the earth as rust; in other words you do not get sophisticate living things out of mud.

If you deny the theory of evolution, and claim that god magically created life, then how do you account for the fact that 99.9% of all species are now extinct? If not through evolution, you'd have to conclude that your god is either utterly incompetent in creating things, or is extremely malevolent. Which do you prefer?

But we do have the evidence that all sophisticate living things die and go back to the earth.
One story is true and one is a lie, use your wisdom to make your choise.

The fact that things die doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur. This is a ridiculous argument. Things reproduce, and that's how life gets perpetuated. The obvious lie is Creationism.

Yes some of those are delusional and fallacious claims in fact the world is full of them.
But you cannot tell me that my personal experience is a lie,

I can't?!

Are you saying that your personal and subjective experience is somehow immune from errors?

You never believed in something that you later discovered was not true? You never experienced a placebo effect?

I can most definitely tell you that your subjective experience is subjected to delusions, because you believe something that is not true, and is impossible to be true (the impossibility of life after death and of heaven)

God has rewarded my faith and He has revealed himself to me that He exists. I can only tell you of His character, what you do with that is up to you.

You have no reason to think that what you believe is not a delusion. Your experience is based on the placebo effect.

But if we truly follow the character of God the world would be a better place, so even if it is delusional and I do no harm, so what is the problem.

Having false hope is harmful. Having a misunderstanding of how the world works is harmful. Since your beliefs are based on delusion, you have to defend this delusion from reality. This naturally leads to ignorance, hypocrisy, intolerance, self-righteousness. All these qualities are harmful, and all these qualities make the world a terrible place.

Yes some uses God to make money, some to make war, etc, etc. But is that God's fault? You say yes it is his fault, because he has given us free will.

I don't say that he's given us free will. Religion does. I can't really blame your god, because he doesn't exist. But I do blame religion for all these things.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[free spirit]

This is a specious claim. I can equally say that God's nonexistence is all around us to see, and that our being comes entirely from nature, with no supernatural characteristics whatsoever.


If you deny the theory of evolution, and claim that god magically created life, then how do you account for the fact that 99.9% of all species are now extinct? If not through evolution, you'd have to conclude that your god is either utterly incompetent in creating things, or is extremely malevolent. Which do you prefer?



The fact that things die doesn't mean that evolution didn't occur. This is a ridiculous argument. Things reproduce, and that's how life gets perpetuated. The obvious lie is Creationism.


I can't?!


Are you saying that your personal and subjective experience is somehow immune from errors?

You never believed in something that you later discovered was not true? You never experienced a placebo effect?

I can most definitely tell you that your subjective experience is subjected to delusions, because you believe something that is not true, and is impossible to be true (the impossibility of life after death and of heaven)



You have no reason to think that what you believe is not a delusion. Your experience is based on the placebo effect.


Having false hope is harmful. Having a misunderstanding of how the world works is harmful. Since your beliefs are based on delusion, you have to defend this delusion from reality. This naturally leads to ignorance, hypocrisy, intolerance, self-righteousness. All these qualities are harmful, and all these qualities make the world a terrible place.


I don't say that he's given us free will. Religion does. I can't really blame your god, because he doesn't exist. But I do blame religion for all these things.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

Obviously you have truly made up your mind and any discussion will be fruitless. I hope that in time you will reconsider your position.

 

[Enoughie]

Obviously you have truly made up your mind and any discussion will be fruitless. I hope that in time you will reconsider your position.

My position has a solid foundation in reality, nature, reason, science, and is supported by overwhelming evidence. At the same time, if you could challenge the foundation to my position, or demonstrate that it is logically unsound or inconsistent, I would gladly reconsider it.

Your position, on the other hand, is based on credulity and delusional wishful thinking. Nothing more. That is an irrational position to maintain. Yet, in light of all the evidence against it you are reluctant to reconsider your position. I hope you do reconsider your position however.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Luminous]

In the way I just implied.

how can you not doubt? if you are doubting that you are doubting?

 

[free spirit]

My position has a solid foundation in reality, nature, reason, science, and is supported by overwhelming evidence. At the same time, if you could challenge the foundation to my position, or demonstrate that it is logically unsound or inconsistent, I would gladly reconsider it.

Your foundations are the best avalible in this earthly realm I cannot dispute that, nevertheless they are still theories. In that theory time is the muster mind of creation, but look around you, in reality time is the dismantler of creation.

Your position, on the other hand, is based on credulity and delusional wishful thinking. Nothing more. That is an irrational position to maintain. Yet, in light of all the evidence against it you are reluctant to reconsider your position. I hope you do reconsider your position however.

On the other hand your foundation on the spiritual realm is not existent for it is accessed through faith, so I have an unfair advance over you because I have access to both realms.

 

[Enoughie]

On the other hand your foundation on the spiritual realm is not existent for it is accessed through faith, so I have an unfair advance over you because I have access to both realms.

All "faith"/"belief" means is "accepting something as true." What basis do you have to accept the "spiritual" realm as existent? What evidence do you have that it exists? Only wishful thinking and false hope for eternal life.

The "spiritual" realm is nonexistent. It's an entirely fabricated realm. A fantasy. A delusion.

Unless you can prove otherwise? Can you demonstrate that the spiritual realm exists?

No you cannot.

There are countless such nonexistent realms. Realms where the moon is made of cheese, or where pigs can fly, or where people can live forever. All these imaginary realms were made for those who have trouble accepting reality as it is. Or, as Einstein said, for "feeble souls."

There is no advantage in having access to any particular one of these fabricated, imaginary, fantasy realms. And there is no reason to believe (to accept as true) in any of these realms.

Believing in what isn't true is not an advantage. It is a disadvantage. By confusing what's real with what's imaginary you're greatly harming your potential to truly live a meaningful life.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

Your foundations are the best avalible in this earthly realm I cannot dispute that

It is not an "earthly" realm. It is the reality realm. The existent realm.

nevertheless they are still theories. In that theory time is the muster mind of creation, but look around you, in reality time is the dismantler of creation..

Time and space are inseparable. They are one and the same. Which means, one cannot destroy the other.

Also, things don't just exist "in theory," they also exist in practice.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[free spirit]

It is not an "earthly" realm. It is the reality realm. The existent realm.

Yes it is a phisical reality, but the words that you speak are spiritual, I can hear what you are saying, my spirit can understand what your spirit is saying. If you were to take away that capability you would be alive but not living. To ignore your spiritual side is not only foolish it is also unreasonable.


Time and space are inseparable. They are one and the same. Which means, one cannot destroy the other.
All I know is that Yesterday is gone forever.

Also, things don't just exist "in theory," they also exist in practice.

Yes they exist: but the theory is how they come into existence.

 

[Enoughie]

Yes it is a phisical reality, but the words that you speak are spiritual, I can hear what you are saying, my spirit can understand what your spirit is saying. If you were to take away that capability you would be alive but not living.

That's not quite how it works. We are mammals capable of symbolic communication. If you take that capacity away from us we'd be mammals incapable of symbolic communication. We wouldn't be any less alive.

We're not more alive or less alive because we are capable of symbolic communication. Just like we're not more alive or less alive because we're incapable of flying. We'd be equally alive.. only with slightly different capacities.

To ignore your spiritual side is not only foolish it is also unreasonable.

There's nothing "spiritual" about symbolic communication. Bonobo apes are also capable of it to a degree. They don't seem to be very "spiritual" to me.

Also, there is no reason to believe in (to accept as true) a spiritual side, because there is no evidence for it, and it cannot exist (because nothing supernatural can exist). When there's no reason to accept something as true, then by definition, accepting that something as true is unreasonable. Not the other way around.

Yes they exist: but the theory is how they come into existence.

And what's your theory? In six days? Or six "periods"? That myth is inconsistent with what we know about the universe. You'd need to come up with a theory that is actually consistent with the facts first.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[free spirit]

That's not quite how it works. We are mammals capable of symbolic communication. If you take that capacity away from us we'd be mammals incapable of symbolic communication. We wouldn't be any less alive.

We're not more alive or less alive because we are capable of symbolic communication. Just like we're not more alive or less alive because we're incapable of flying. We'd be equally alive.. only with slightly different capacities.


There's nothing "spiritual" about symbolic communication. Bonobo apes are also capable of it to a degree. They don't seem to be very "spiritual" to me.

Also, there is no reason to believe in (to accept as true) a spiritual side, because there is no evidence for it, and it cannot exist (because nothing supernatural can exist). When there's no reason to accept something as true, then by definition, accepting that something as true is unreasonable. Not the other way around.

Animals have also a soul given to them by God, a lesser soul than human neverdeless a soul capable to respond.


And what's your theory? In six days? Or six "periods"? That myth is inconsistent with what we know about the universe. You'd need to come up with a theory that is actually consistent with the facts first.

I was not there at the beginning, but facts can be and are fabricated by men, On the other hand the awe of creation is there for everyone to see.

 

[waitasec]

I was not there at the beginning, but facts can be and are fabricated by men, On the other hand the awe of creation is there for everyone to see.

are you saying ignorance is god?
when we are faced with challenges...do we just give up and say, "it must be god"?
if that were true, do you think we would have come up with a polio vaccine or have been able to send people to the moon?

if indeed facts were fabricated by men we would still believe people are born with a handicap as a result of our fallen nature and the earth is the center of the universe or we wouldn't be able to find a way to forecast the weather...
we wouldn't be able to find cures for cancer... spiritually speaking, this is a direct result of mans sin. because of our natural skepticism and sense of doubt of a supernatural explanation, we have been able to find cures for diseases and learn about the cosmos and how we are affected by it.
so the way i see it, belief in the supernatural world perpetuates ignorance while the search for truth brings progress and seems to threaten the supernatural world by bringing it to the light of day and seeing the supernatural for what it is... bronze age superstition.

 

[free spirit]

are you saying ignorance is god?
when we are faced with challenges...do we just give up and say, "it must be god"?
if that were true, do you think we would have come up with a polio vaccine or have been able to send people to the moon?

if indeed facts were fabricated by men we would still believe people are born with a handicap as a result of our fallen nature and the earth is the center of the universe or we wouldn't be able to find a way to forecast the weather...
we wouldn't be able to find cures for cancer... spiritually speaking, this is a direct result of mans sin. because of our natural skepticism and sense of doubt of a supernatural explanation, we have been able to find cures for diseases and learn about the cosmos and how we are affected by it.
so the way i see it, belief in the supernatural world perpetuates ignorance while the search for truth brings progress and seems to threaten the supernatural world by bringing it to the light of day and seeing the supernatural for what it is... bronze age superstition.

We were made in the image of God and as such we behave as gods, we explore, we create, we long to be musters of the universe: why, because that is the destiny of the children of God.

 

[waitasec]

We were made in the image of God and as such we behave as gods, we explore, we create, we long to be musters of the universe: why, because that is the destiny of the children of God.

ok, but what does this have anything to do with the ideal that religious faith has been a stick in the wheel of progress?
if "holymen" where beyond the laws of the land, heretics would be stoned to death today...
and we would still be subjected to disease...

 

[slowbreath]

Dear friend, you ought to rethink about the consequences of that statement.

If God subjected us to vanity, how suppose we could do anything about it?

If God by the same token subjects us to salvation, can we still do anything about it?

Either way, it is all God's doing and the best thing we can do is accept His unconditional love despite our own selfish desires.

By so doing, our selfishness becomes His desires and shall live then in Him!

Blessings, AJ

what do you think would be the consequense of that statement?