ArcNinja
Member
Uh, yeah, I never said I did. You're the one who suddenly jumped in on this when you didn't even know what was going on. :sarcastic
-
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!
Scientific evidence / arguments for God
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
- Status
Uh, yeah, I never said I did. You're the one who suddenly jumped in on this when you didn't even know what was going on. :sarcastic
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thread title....and your declaration having won something....
Do you know what's going on?
ArcNinja
Member
Did you read the couple of posts before I said that? Didn't think so.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Shall we then proceed with the actual topic?
ArcNinja
Member
I suppose so. What are your arguments for god?
ArcNinja
Member
That's hardly an argument.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
If we can't start at the beginning........
McBell
Unbound
you can start where ever you like.
However, you do still need to present an argument...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And answering the question in my previous post won't get it going?
ArcNinja
Member
Not really. Give us an actual argument so we can debate here.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Attempting a rational discussion with Thief is futile. All he wants to do is to lead you into an area where proof of his claims is impossible. He keeps trying to steer the conversation to 'God', and then hits you with a battery of erroneously-based sub-beliefs he thinks supports God's existence.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Hello straw dog. Yes I believe it is appropriate. In fact I know of scholars who only use science (no scripture) to build the case for theism and it is a very strong one. It seems God is almost a logical imperative to make many things in science (like the rational intelligibility of nature, the moral realm, and the reason why our universe is fine tuned on a razors edge etc...) coherent.
That may be what it is supposed to be dealing with, however it deals with whatever it wants to. In fact things completely devoid of any evidence or even a potentiality for any are deemed to be science.
I don't know, proving anything doesn't exist is very difficult.
There can surely be evidence against the Biblical God, general theism maybe be harder to disprove. Currently there is nothing known that disproves either.
Faith like most of science and all of history is about drawing probabilities based on evidence. Given reality, Christianity has a high degree of probability but in the end it will always be less than proven. That is until that last trumpet sounds or heat death occurs.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The problem with your analogy is that belief in the doctor's cure can be verified via repeated administrations of the cure over time to many patients, in different places by different doctors. Once verified, belief becomes fact, but belief in the first place is based on some tangible evidence that the medicine or drug is actually effective.
Not so with belief in God or Jesus, even where there is an experience of some kind, simply because the believer may be projecting his ego onto a mentally-concocted image of what he thinks is God and/or Jesus. This kind of projection is called Idolatrous Love* (see below).
We are talking about a physically-administered, tangible cure as compared to an invisible one that requires ONLY belief.
The analogy, and erroneous logic, fails.
First of all, a Christian is generally defined as one who:
believes (for whatever reason) that an alleged personage via the name of 'Jesus Christ' who lived over 2000 years ago is strangely somehow the fleshy offspring of a creator-God that dwells in some far-off heavenly realm, and that, according to the Apostle's Creed:
>he was conceived via a spirit called the Holy Spirit, and then born of a virgin;
>he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was entombed.
>he descended into a hellish realm, and after 3 days, he was resurrected back to life on Earth and then ascended into a heavenly realm.
>he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (we all know who is seated at his left):biglaugh:
>he will return to Earth as judge of both living and dead.
In addition, a Christian must accept the alleged personage known as 'Jesus Christ', even though such personage is no longer (assuming he ever was) present in the flesh, as his only Lord and Savior, with the full understanding that, if such acceptance is not forthcoming, then one is automatically relegated to eternal damnation, as stated in:
Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
and....
John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
In other words, the so-called 'cure' is administered under duress via of threat of harm to one's body and soul in the form of everlasting torment.
This dictum applies to ALL mankind.
The difference is this:
If you accept the doctor's cure, you will most likely get well. If you do not, you may die as a consequence of the disease. What occurs here depends on fact.
If you accept the invisible 'Jesus', you won't know whether you will go to heaven until you are dead; but if you go to hell, it is not a natural consequence, but the result of a willfully imposed punishment. What supposedly occurs here depends on belief.
Being a Christian depends upon belief and living in accordance with certain commandments as set forth by Christian doctrine.
Not being a Christian means one no longer gives credence to belief in the idea that Jesus was who scripture says he was. However, one can still live in accordance with certain moral and/or ethical guidance.
Depending on the Christian denomination in question, these doctrines can vary.
*****
*I. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO
This is Idolatrous Love, in which the ego is projected onto another being [eg.; "Jesus"]. The pretension to divinity as "distinct" has left my organism and is now fixed on the organism of the other. The affective situation is one in which the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, against everything that is opposed to him. I no longer love my own organism except insofar as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalize his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolized being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in him, the apparent love can be turned to hate.
from ’Zen and the Psychology of Transformation: The Supreme Doctrine’, by Hubert Benoit; Pantheon Books, ISBN 0-89281-272-9
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I think you confirmed my hypothesis. You never once mentioned what it is that makes someone an actual Christian. Being born again (and it is unmistakable) is the entry point to being a Christian. I believe you did what I suspect is the case in almost all these former faith stories. I believe you had at one time an intellectual consent to Biblical theology. This type of faith has shallow roots and can't withstand the winds that blow against it. That is the type of faith that led to the apostles running away when Christ was taken away. However after they were born of the spirit they became obedient even to death. Being born again makes all the difference. It is a very confusing concept and much doubt surrounds it (am I born again?, am I a true Christian?) until you actually are born again and then you think so this is what they were talking about. Anyway thanks for the honesty. My evaluation was not a good person, bad person conclusion. I have been born again and as Paul said I am chief of sinners. It is an experiential and positional issue not a worth or merit one.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I thought I answered this. Yes IF AND ONLY IF TRUE they would. It may be a better basis for a morality that was not acceptable to me and you but true none the less. I however do not think they are right so it is a non issue. There is no argument possible to the claim that moral codes issued by the being that created us and morality are less substantial than what we invent on our own. Morality derived without God isn't moral, it is speciesm, opinion, preference, and arbitrary. It isn't good or evil, it is preferred on not preferred.
godnotgod
Thou art That
[youtube]fDp7pkEcJVQ[/youtube]
Kissing Hank's *** - YouTube
Kissing Hank's *** - YouTube
godnotgod
Thou art That
Except for the fact that, as Jesus told us, 'the Kingdom of God is within', so any 'moral code' that may come from God would necessarily come from within. But when we add something else that Jesus said, namely, that 'lest ye become as little children, ye shall not enter into Paradise', along with 'judge not, lest ye be judged', it becomes painfully clear that real spirituality does not rest on morality, but on innate virtue. It is this innate virtue, the directing, divinely intelligent force that comes from within, which Jesus is referring to, that is the basis for the way little children see the world. That is to say, they see without judging, without forming moral opinions of right and wrong. They just see things as they are, without judgment. It is social indoctrination from other men that infuses the moral code into man, not God. It is then that man loses touch with his true nature, known as 'innocency', 'original mind', Tao, The Unborn, Buddha Nature, Namaste, Gnosis, etc. The moral code pits good against evil, but only ends up making evil stronger by opposing it, thereby creating conflict within where no such conflict originally existed. But when a system of reward and punishment is added to the moral code, things become even more distorted and corrupt. When the good man is rewarded, it plants envy in the hearts of the undeserving, for one thing. Men no longer do things because they are ethically right, but for the reward they can attain, or the punishment they can avoid.
When a man believes in an external, morally directing force he calls 'God', he becomes 'other-directed', the premise is that man has a 'sinful nature' and must be made 'good' by some external, controlling force; but when he allows his true nature, innate virtue to guide him from the inside-out, he becomes inner-directed, and NO, I am not referring here to the ego, the false self.
*****
A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.
A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done
When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a moralist does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order
Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.
Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower,
Therefore accept the one and reject the other.
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Originally Posted by godnotgod
You play the childish game of tit for tat, pointing to those you oppose whenever fallacies are revealed in your religious beliefs.
It is childish, and no, tit for tat does NOT mean one uses the same argumentation in return; it means that one retaliates out of a sense of 'you hit me; I hit you back'.
Unfortunately, many adults retain a tit-for-tat attitude, but in a more refined way than the simple, childish shove for shove.
tit for tat - Wiktionary
'retain' here being the keyword, as in 'anal'. In other words, you strike out at atheists defensively because you take their opposition to your view as offense. It means you are personally attached to your view. Mature people, on the other hand, who use tit for tat do it in a playful way, thereby poking fun at tit for tat itself. You are dead serious, because your dogma dictates that you need to be.
Yes, you made a point of propping yourself up as associating with learned men to show that you know what you are talking about, when you do not. It's just so much window dressing otherwise known as pedantry, that, when blown away, reveals someone who thinks that by being on what he considers the 'right' side of authority, is safe and secure, and morally 'correct', after which you then proceeded to downgrade me as 'ignorant' in order to create a more stark contrast. This is just another game of spiritual one-upsmanship you Christians play, not just with non-Christians, but amongst yourselves, to show that you are somehow 'holier than thou'. Here we have a good example of the cleverly-disguised machinations of the ego, always playing the balancing act between the Persona and the Shadow.
It does not surprise me that you have no regard for scholasticism, and use it like a short man uses elevated shoes to make himself appear taller than he really is. We refer to this condition as 'insecurity'.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
What's kinda funny, in light of the back and forth banter between theists and atheists, is that, from the Hindu point of view, an atheist is God pretending that he does'nt exist, while a theist is God pretending that God is someone other than himself, both playing the game of cosmic Hide and Seek to the hilt, both God playing 'not-God'.
From the point of view of the universe, you are the universe looking at itself through its own eyes.
From the point of view of the Absolute, the universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.
YOU are that Absolute.
From the point of view of the universe, you are the universe looking at itself through its own eyes.
From the point of view of the Absolute, the universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.
YOU are that Absolute.
Last edited:
- Status