Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[Robert.Evans]

I am thrilled that you realize that there is at least something (an Existence before consciousness that just "IS") that is neither the product of intelligence nor the product of luck. Which actually defeats your dichotomy, in at least one case.

How so? There is no such thing as luck, remember. We are now talking real and not as the world. If you want to come down to level of world, then we can mention luck again. And by the way, that is what I have always been saying.
So I see nothing defeated. If you disagree, then please explain.

So, your answer is my answer.

I just need an intermediating "intelligence" less than you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Which actually defeats your dichotomy, in at least one case.

My argument is based in this world. We are under law and under time. Consciousness has no such constraints nor does pure existence

 

[Demonslayer]

Pretending?? You don't understand scripture.

I understand the Genesis account is a poorly written, woefully inept attempt to describe something we don't understand. God creates light, then days later, he creates the source of the light? Where was this 'light' coming from before the stars were projecting it?

But before he creates the stars, which we now know is the source of all light, God "separates this sourceless light from the dark, and names the light "day" and the dark "night."

Don't you see how primitive a description of dark and light that is? Light = Day, Dark = Night. it's not even remotely so. We now know light is constant and night is merely human perception of the Earth's shadow when we rotate away from the sun. Light has nothing fundamentally to do with the rotation of planets.

Then...then it gets good! Then God makes a "valut" to sepearate water from water. He puts this "vault" ABOVE the water and he calls that "sky" (mind you, he hasn't created the stars yet at this point...the "light" is still has no source apparently). We clearly now know that the sky is not "above" the sea. The "sky" is all the space around our planet, and isn't simply above the ocean. And the "sky" certainly doesn't seperate the sea from some other body of water "above" the sky. It's incredibly innacurate.

Again, an incredibly primitive vision of the ocean and sky. Which makes sense because the Christian creation myth was written by very primitive people.

This story is what makes you think you have all the answers to the universe? This preposterous tale of sourceless light and vaults of sky seperating bodies of water? I mean it doesn't even properly describe what we currently see, why would anyone believe in correctly describes exactly what happened 14 billion years ago?

 

[Shad]

Ok. How about
Habermas, G. R. (1996). The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press.
?
That's a popular book of the same kind (by "popular", I mean "non-technical", not popular in the vernacular sense).

You seem to be under the impression that I am a Jesus myther. I am not. I am pointing of the limitation of evidence for Jesus.

I question any author that treats Paul's views of the resurrection are accurate since "Paul respected historical facts". Just as I pointed out early some people make far grander conclusions then the evidence warrants. He mixed his religious views into his work rather than keep strictly to the evidence and no speculate on "Paul's respect for history". Perhaps you should read the book again in order to refresh yourself with the speculation presented as fact by the author.

 

[Shad]

Time reveals change. Can change be said to exist within consciousness, thoughts? If so, time existed before the universe began.
We know what happened before the BB, even if not in detail, by the words that were left us in scripture.

Time is part of reality as per general relativity. To have a thought is change as consciousness has only been observed in a time restricted reality. Your speculation has no basis. No we do not know what happened before the BB as the model breaks down before even inflation began. You faith is not physical evidence nor even models in theoretical physics. You faith does not convince anyone that is not already a believer.

 

[Nietzsche]

Time reveals change. Can change be said to exist within consciousness, thoughts? If so, time existed before the universe began.
We know what happened before the BB, even if not in detail, by the words that were left us in scripture.

Thoughts require a medium of some kind. All our thoughts(and therefore the only "thought" we are aware can exist) are due to a combination of fatty tissue and electricity. When that tissue fails or the input is cut off, our thoughts simply cease. There is nothing to suggest "free-floating" thought. Everything you are is contained inside your head, and without that "you" cease to be.

 

[viole]

How so? There is no such thing as luck, remember. We are now talking real and not as the world. If you want to come down to level of world, then we can mention luck again. And by the way, that is what I have always been saying.
So I see nothing defeated. If you disagree, then please explain.

If there is no luck (your statement) and this intelligence is not itself the product of intelligence, because it comes from an Existence before consciousness that just "IS" (again your statement),
then there is at least something existing that is neither the product of intelligence nor luck. Namely, this Existence before consciousness that just "IS".

But if there is such a thing, which is the logical conclusion of your statements, then it is obvious that things can possibly exist without coming from an intelligence (nor from luck).

At least one can. Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

I understand the Genesis

account is a poorly written, woefully inept attempt to describe something we

don't understand. God creates light, then days later, he creates the source of the

light? Where was this 'light' coming from before the stars were projecting it?

It mentions Genesis. We would call it the big bang. But it must also be seen on

deeper levels.

But before he creates the stars, which we now know is the source of all light, God

"separates this sourceless light from the dark, and names the light "day" and the

dark "night."

You must not confuse that with its deeper meaning which is what needs to be

understood. It is not a sceince manual, so your attack of it is pointless and only

furthers you own misunderstanding of it and suits your own agenda

Don't you see how primitive a description of dark and light that is? Light = Day,

Dark = Night. it's not even remotely so. We now know light is constant and

night is merely human perception of the Earth's shadow when we rotate away

from the sun. Light has nothing fundamentally to do with the rotation of planets.

I think even then they would have noticed that the sun lowered in the sky.

Then...then it gets good! Then God makes a "valut" to sepearate water from

water.

This is speaking about consciousness. It is reflected her in a blue sky and sea.

He puts this "vault" ABOVE the water and he calls that "sky" (mind you, he

hasn't created the stars yet at this point...the "light" is still has no source

apparently). We clearly now know that the sky is not "above" the sea. The "sky"

is all the space around our planet, and isn't simply above the ocean.

But still above the sea though, eh. so picky.

And the "sky" certainly doesn't seperate the sea from some other body of water

"above" the sky. It's incredibly innacurate.

That's what your comments look like. You are trying to compare this with

sceince. That is plain silly.

Again, an incredibly primitive vision of the ocean and sky. Which makes sense

because the Christian creation myth was written by very primitive people.

It is not describing the ocean and sky. Brother!

This story is what makes you think you have all the answers to the universe?

This preposterous tale of sourceless light and vaults of sky seperating bodies of

water? I mean it doesn't even properly describe what we currently see, why

would anyone believe in correctly describes exactly what happened 14 billion

years ago?

It explains quite easily that at one time nothing existed. I think that is a big ask at such a development of mankind. It explains that it comes about through stages. It shows that animals are before man. It shows much. But comparing it with science and what we know now is stupid. You do it to suit your agenda.

So, in answer to your last point, why indeed.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If there is no luck (your statement) and this intelligence is not itself the product of intelligence, because it comes from an Existence before consciousness that just "IS" (again your statement),
then there is at least something existing that is neither the product of intelligence nor luck. Namely, this Existence before consciousness that just "IS".

But if there is such a thing, which is the logical conclusion of your statements, then it is obvious that things can possibly exist without coming from an intelligence (nor from luck).

At least one can. Don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

No it is not obvious no. For one, there is no such thing as luck.
Are you not understanding this?

Once intelligence exists, it must come from that. How can it come from luck that does not exist in the first place?
We use such words to describe things we can't describe because we don't believe in intelligence in the first place.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Time is part of reality as per general relativity. To have a thought is change as consciousness has only been observed in a time restricted reality. Your speculation has no basis.

Time shows change. If you cannot show change, how can you show time?

No we do not know what happened before the BB

I assume "we" is science.

as the model breaks down before even inflation began. You faith is not physical evidence nor even models in theoretical physics. You faith does not convince anyone that is not already a believer.

My gnosis is for me and I do not think for one minute that it will convince you unless God opens your eyes. That does not, however, imply I am wrong. Everything must come from something after all.

 

[viole]

No it is not obvious no. For one, there is no such thing as luck.
Are you not understanding this?

Yes.

Once intelligence exists, it must come from that. How can it come from luck that does not exist in the first place?
We use such words to describe things we can't describe because we don't believe in intelligence in the first place.

And where does this intelligence come from, if luck does not exist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thoughts require a medium of some kind. All our thoughts(and therefore the only "thought" we are aware can exist) are due to a combination of fatty tissue and electricity. When that tissue fails or the input is cut off, our thoughts simply cease. There is nothing to suggest "free-floating" thought. Everything you are is contained inside your head, and without that "you" cease to be.

Within a physical plain, yes.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes.



And where does this intelligence come from, if luck does not exist?

Ciao

- viole

Now there is a million dollar question!
Where and how? Now that is a question to ask, not where the bigbang comes from, which pales into insignificance at such a thought.
It is part of its own Self and develops from what it is. It is neither intelligence (at first) nor luck. No such things exist then. We are speaking of something completely different.

 

[viole]

Now there is a million dollar question!
Where and how? Now that is a question to ask, not where the bigbang comes from, which pales into insignificance at such a thought.
It is part of its own Self and develops from what it is. It is neither intelligence (at first) nor luck. No such things exist then. We are speaking of something completely different.

If it is neither intelligence nor luck, then do you agree that something can exist without being intelligence nor luck?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Robert.Evans]

If it is neither intelligence nor luck, then do you agree that something can exist without being intelligence nor luck?

Ciao

- viole

We do not "exist", we have been brought into being.
There is only one thing that exists, and that is the Source of everything. It is bound by none of our laws.

Am I answering this for you?
I thought you might have the answer viola, but so far I am disappointed.

 

[viole]

We do not "exist", we have been brought into being.
There is only one thing that exists, and that is the Source of everything. It is bound by none of our laws.

Am I answering this for you?
I thought you might have the answer viola, but so far I am disappointed.

I am disappointed, because you use special pleading. You challenge atheists by asking them where the Universe comes from if not intelligence (or luck),
while you are yourself unable to answer where this mysterious intelligence you believe in comes from.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Demonslayer]

You must not confuse that with its deeper meaning which is what needs to be understood.

I must not confuse the Genesis claim that God create "light" before the source of the light, with a deeper meaning? Is there some deeper meaning that the Genesis account claims light was created before the stars? What IS that deeper meaning?

It is not a sceince manual, so your attack of it is pointless and only furthers you own misunderstanding of it and suits your own agenda

But you act as if it IS a science manual. When you scoff at the big bang, isn't it because you believe Genesis is an accurate depiction of how the universe came to be?

This is speaking about consciousness. It is reflected her in a blue sky and sea.

It is not describing the ocean and sky. Brother!

It is indeed describing the ocean and sky. Genesis says on the second day of creation week, God said "let there be a vault between the waters to seperate water from water. So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. God called the vault “sky.”

That is the Genesis account of "sky" and "ocean." The claim is that the "sky" is a vault that seperates water from water. What is the water "above" the "sky"? Is there some deeper meaning here too?

Is Genesis supposed to describe how the universe was created, or not? If it is, I submit it's woefully innacurate.

 

[Demonslayer]

It explains quite easily that at one time nothing existed.

It claims one time nothing existed, it doesn't explain it, it just makes a baseless claim.

It explains that it comes about through stages.

It claims that it comes about through stages. Odd stages that make no sense, like light coming before the source of light.

It shows that animals are before man.

It claims animals are before man.

It shows much.

It claims much. It shows nothing.

But comparing it with science and what we know now is stupid. You do it to suit your agenda

What's stupid is being able to see that what we know now negates the accuracy of the Genesis account, yet still believing the Genesis account is accurate.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am disappointed, because you use special pleading. You challenge atheists by asking them where the Universe comes from if not intelligence (or luck),
while you are yourself unable to answer where this mysterious intelligence you believe in comes from.

Ciao

- viole

We cannot ignore our own universe though because we cannot explain deeper things though, can we?
I challenge anyone to answer it, not just atheists, and I asked you as you seen quite clever.
This Existence I speak of comes from nowhere, because no where exists, just the Existence. That is it.

Something has to be ultimately unexplainable, doesn't it? Or is that your excuse. I can't explain all things so ignore it. You can't, so believe it.

 

[viole]

We cannot ignore our own universe though because we cannot explain deeper things though, can we?
I challenge anyone to answer it, not just atheists, and I asked you as you seen quite clever.
This Existence I speak of comes from nowhere, because no where exists, just the Existence. That is it.

Something has to be ultimately unexplainable, doesn't it? Or is that your excuse. I can't explain all things so ignore it. You can't, so believe it.

Ok, the Universe comes from nowhere too.

Now what? Are you asking me why is it so ordered? If yes, I am going to ask you why your intelligence is so ordered, unless you believe it is chaotic.

Is this intelligence chaotic?

Ciao

- viole