WHY I BELIEVE THAT CHRIST IS GOD

[Subduction Zone]

Atheist do it all the time. Its common. that you play unaware of it is silly.

It goes like this, A claims a spiritual experience or God consciousness. B the atheist demands proof. A says I dont have such demonstrable proof. B says see there, that's proof it doesn't exist because it cannot be demonstrated as a fact.

Really? You claim that it happens all of the time. You should be able to find an example. Your claim is not very believable.

Sometimes there are true truth seekers who are intellectually honest and mature enough to debate. You are not one of those people who can extrapolate truth from wherever it comes from, so it wouldn't matter what I present.

Yes, sometimes there are. Guess what. Those debaters do not use strawman arguments. And look at you with personal insults. Those are against the rules of the forum. You can say that someone's arguments are crap but you cannot try to make such false claims about others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Straw man is when Atheist cant acknowledge truths and have to mock people because they weren't interested in sincere debate to begin with. Your mind is made up, not a true scientist nor a true truth seeker. Heckler on a religious form.

Nope, when you misrepresent the arguments of others that is a strawman. You have all of these claims that require support and can provide none. Strawman arguments are always dishonest. It also shows that the person making the argument has no real evidence otherwise there would be no need to stoop so low.

You can do better. Don't take the easy way out that convinces no one and only makes you look bad.

 

[Colt]

A sincere person can see the wisdom in this statement unless it dings his philosophy. Its not proselytizing please don't go read the book, it just says it better than I can so I quote it.

"If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts."

 

[mmarco]

And this is just an argument from ignorance. .

False; it's an argument based on our scientific knowledges. Materialism is based on assumtions contradicted by our scientific knowledges. I am just pointing out such contradictions.

 

[Wrangler]

We humans have paired mathematical models and explanatory functionality to these observed phenomenon because they work to approximately describe the activities. It's not "math first, matter second." Our observation of matter was most certainly first.

Yes, our understanding Creation came after Creation. The most inexplicable part of reality is that it IS understandable!

The fact that mathematical models do not merely approximate but essentially precisely predicts reality indicates the mind of the Creator.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"Real science" deals with materials and facts. When you go beyond materials and facts and postulate a Godless universe buttressed by such facts then you are no longer a "true scientist", your science has become a philosophy.

This is ridiculous. There is nothing "unscientific" about observing a material/factual phenomenon and then when a bystander states that "God is at work" in the material/activity being observed, one replies "I don't observe that. Can you demonstrate to me what indicates the presence of God to you?"

And the idea of dealing with and sticking to FACTS should automatically exclude any explanation that includes "God" as its foundation, UNLESS God can be specifically observed and His involvement directly inferred. Any and all assertions that include "God" have been about as unscientific as one can get. And this precisely because there are no materials or facts that point in His direction. None. There's a book of human thoughts, and a bunch of other humans' thoughts. That's it. All thoughts. No materials... and nothing even approaching a "fact."

 

[Subduction Zone]

False; it's an argument based on our scientific knowledges. Materialism is based on assumtions contradicted by our scientific knowledges. I am just pointing out such contradictions.

There were no "contradictions". There are merely parts of science that we do not understand. That will always be the case since when we learn more we learn enough to ask new questions. An unanswered question is never evidence for a god. The good news is that it is not evidence against a god either.

 

[Colt]

Nope, when you misrepresent the arguments of others that is a strawman. You have all of these claims that require support and can provide none. Strawman arguments are always dishonest. It also shows that the person making the argument has no real evidence otherwise there would be no need to stoop so low.

You can do better. Don't take the easy way out that convinces no one and only makes you look bad.

You did it right here, Adam and Eve in human genetics. New results. playing dumb makes you look like you look now.

 

[Wrangler]

And if you're talking about things like humans taking advantage of the environment, hurting one another, starting fights and wars and generally mucking things up - what I feel we need to combat that is education

You failed to learn the lesson of Original Sin. Education, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the wrong, self-destructive choice.

 

[McBell]

Atheist do it all the time. Its common. that you play unaware of it is silly.

It goes like this, A claims a spiritual experience or God consciousness. B the atheist demands proof. A says I dont have such demonstrable proof. B says see there, that's proof it doesn't exist because it cannot be demonstrated as a fact.

Sometimes there are true truth seekers who are intellectually honest and mature enough to debate. You are not one of those people who can extrapolate truth from wherever it comes from, so it wouldn't matter what I present.

So you are unable to present an example of someone doing the very thing you claim is being done?

You do an awful lot of talking the talk, but when asked to walk the walk you tuck tail and run.

I currently see no reason to take you seriously on this topic.

Fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did it right here, Adam and Eve in human genetics. New results. playing dumb makes you look like you look now.

Nope, you claimed "revelation" that is not reliable evidence since there are countless examples of "revelation" that contradict each other. Almost any leader of a small cult had "revealed knowledge". Reliable evidence is evidence to a broad range of people, not just a select group that already agrees.

 

[MonkeyFire]

He came to Earth to save people, and He was crucified as a result. Thus, we placed irony in hell ever after, if for no other reason than to burn murderers. Ever heard of the wonder beast of all colors? If you don't fall at all love never realize marriage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He came to Earth to save people, and He was crucified as a result. Thus, we placed irony in hell ever after, if for no other reason than to burn murderers. Ever heard of the wonder beast of all colors? If you don't fall at all love never realize marriage.

And your evidence for such claims is . . . ?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The fact that mathematical models do not merely approximate but essentially precisely predicts reality indicates the mind of the Creator.

No.

Let's take a simple example that puts your idea here into serious question. The value PI - the intrinsically present constant that is the same for all circles, regardless their radius. It is an irrational number - when approaching the limit of infinite sides to approximate the value using various equations, the series of decimals is non-terminating and varied to no end. There is literally no way that one could imagine/draw a circle that did not adhere to PI as a root to its evaluation. It is impossible. As in - not even God could accomplish such. It is a property of perfect circles. It's a packaged deal. Much like the interior angles of a proper triangle summing to half the full "degrees" of a continuum (aka circle), regardless the measurement system used - degrees/radians/etc.

To the point that, things don't have to be "thought first" by some magical mind in order to "just be." PI, JUST IS. It also isn't, at all, a nice, neat quantity that "makes sense." It makes sense because it is what it is. Not because someone dreamt it up and "applied it to the universe" - what a ridiculous notion.

The reason this casts serious doubt is because it displays that there most certainly are mathematical "objects" that didn't need an instantiating mind to be true. And without any significant evidence of God's involvement - besides the thoughts of a bunch of unimaginative people who can't dare to think of it any other way - there remains absolutely no reason to insert God anywhere until good evidence (NOT thoughts, thought experiments, or singular argumentation) is presented.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You failed to learn the lesson of Original Sin. Education, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the wrong, self-destructive choice.

I don't believe in "original sin." I've heard the story, heard the supposed interpretations - and I find it to be entirely lacking any adherence to reality. Where does that leave us?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It goes like this, A claims a spiritual experience or God consciousness. B the atheist demands proof. A says I dont have such demonstrable proof. B says see there, that's proof it doesn't exist because it cannot be demonstrated as a fact.

See that bold, red, underlined part there? The atheist doesn't even have to go as far as to say "that's proof that it doesn't exist." Not at all. All they have to say is "I don't believe you." And then, with that said, the scenario becomes EXACTLY like this one:

It goes like this, "A" claims he owns a bridge and will sell it to "B". "B", the prospective buyer demands to see the deed. "A" says: I don't have the deed LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!. "B" says: well, then you don't have the potential of receiving any of my money either.

 

[Colt]

Nope, you claimed "revelation" that is not reliable evidence since there are countless examples of "revelation" that contradict each other. Almost any leader of a small cult had "revealed knowledge". Reliable evidence is evidence to a broad range of people, not just a select group that already agrees.

You wanted an example, I provided it. Atheist take the same approach to any and all discussions of spirituality or revelatory works.

 

[Colt]

And your evidence for such claims is . . . ?

There he goes again.

 

[mmarco]

There were no "contradictions".

I have clearly shown such contradictions, and you have provided no valid counter argument.
You are simply denying the obvious.
You need to reject all our scientific knowledges abut matter in order to keep your assumption that consciousness is generated by cerebral processes; this is sufficient to prove that materialism is incompatible with our scientific knowledges.
However, you will never recognize and understand the truth as long as you are not willing to accept te truth.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There he goes again.

Yeah... and you will get it day in and day out until your butt-hurt self can DELIVER.