• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for former theists...

John53

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Xavier Graham SA said:
It is an abstract concept, right? There is a parallel Taoist concept, Wei Wu Wei, to do without doing. How can you get anything done if you do nothing? The answer is; to do nothing is the only way to get anything accomplished. Once you know what it means to do without doing, then one can learn by unlearning. To intellectually describe this concept is not really possible (at least for me). It’s about shedding your ego and attuning yourself with the universe and your soul. This is how one can access instinctual, primal knowledge.
Bit long winded I’m sorry. When I first heard of the concepts, such as suspension of intellect, I didn’t understand. It is abstract, I still don’t fully understand. If we rely on our intellect to discover proof of God, I believe we will find no answers.
Click to expand...

Way too deep for me to understand or appreciate but thanks for taking the time to explain.
 
stvdv

stvdv

Veteran Member
Altfish said:
then I asked myself the question, "Who created god?" - and the myths fell apart
Click to expand...
Strange conclusion

How were you able to answer your question?

Which definition of God did you use?

And to make a sensible conclusion about God you need to have checked all definitions of God, right?

Seems to me that you just gave up, because only if you are omniscient, you will be able to check all about God

Hence the "myth" conclusion can't be right
 
osgart

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think religion hits you when you are young just before you take a long, hard look at reality. That often is the case. And growing up in religion it is hard to break the spell.

So like a lot of people might have drastically different ways of thinking, and intuitions that are quite strong.

For me Christian theism is something I grew up with and tried hard to escape its influences. I would have rather discovered and explored reality for myself rather than blindly accept what was taught to me. What was taught to me was very unrealistic. I'm very amazed so many people take it so seriously.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Altfish said:
OK, William Lane Craig's favourite or is that the Cosmological Argument; all debunked of course.
Click to expand...

Err. No.

I understand now that you have no understanding of any serious theological arguments or even the concepts to begin with. Thus, you are just stating the same strawman fallacies repeated by those very unsophisticated atheists around the internet. There are atheists who make much better arguments. Dont follow famous people and famous arguments. Try to get into the shoes of more grown up atheists.

Anyway, I didnt make any arguments. Read my post again.

Have a good day Altfish. Cheers.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
To me, God is a necessary being, and you may find it similar to description found in the ontological argument.
Click to expand...
I have not seen a version of the ontological argument that does not fail. Perhaps you have one that doesn't do so. Trying to claim that God is "necessary" is usually a result of people that could nt stand the honest statement "we don't know yet". I am not saying that God has been refuted, though specific versions of "God" have been. But I have not seen a successful argument for God's existence yet either.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I have not seen a version of the ontological argument that does not fail.
Click to expand...

I didnt say I am using the ontological argument so that's irrelevant. I said the description in it so that those who dont have an understanding of this so called God character can understand.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Why?

And you did appear to appeal to the ontological argument:

  1. To me, God is a necessary being, and you may find it similar to description found in . . .
Click to expand...

Again, its the description. Will cut and paste so that you can read that post once more.

I didnt say I am using the ontological argument so that's irrelevant. I said the description in it so that those who dont have an understanding of this so called God character can understand.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
Nope. You have got it upside down.



Can you give an example of a necessary being? (not contingent).
Click to expand...
The universe is "necessary". Aside from that I do not know of anything. Again, sometimes the right answer is "I don't know". You claim that God is necessary but you have not demonstrated that.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
firedragon said:
Again, its the description. Will cut and paste so that you can read that post once more.

I didnt say I am using the ontological argument so that's irrelevant. I said the description in it so that those who dont have an understanding of this so called God character can understand.
Click to expand...
I would prefer something in your own words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top