question about Christianity

#353
#353
rjd970 said:
Actually I think it is Doctrine and Covenants, but it's all the same silliness.
Click to expand...

therealUT said:
The difference is that I am not adding properties to an unknown and unexplained phenomenon. That is a distinct and material difference. I do not believe something that is unimaginable to natural laws; I see that natural laws and reason have a finite limit: that naturally leads to the conclusion that something that pays no heed to such laws is necessary. Then, stop.

I do not know how many separate times I must explain this distinction. It is fundamental. I am not conjuring up properties that I feel should belong to a necessary being; I am not creating stories or buying into stories about how this being likes animal sacrifices more than first fruits; I am not creating stories about how this being destroyed a city because its inhabitants were rapists.

I have said that these things are possible; I said that from the beginning. They are just as possible as the Hindu myths, the Greek myths, the Norse myths, etc. Where those myths really began, I stopped...the necessity of a supernatural force.

I have stated that it is absurd to believe in any of these religions without reasons for soundly and validly refuting all the others.
Click to expand...

You must be, what natural law creates something from nothing?

be the definition of a law, how do we know these "laws" are correct outside of our realm? Have we tested them against another Universe?
 
#354
#354
therealUT said:
In the future, do not try to defend your faith by plagiarizing something and trying to pass it off as your own work. That is pretty dishonest and more than likely a sin.
Click to expand...

It was not intentional, but I see your point. I'll post links next time.
 
#355
#355
ImTheCrew said:
You must be, what natural law creates something from nothing?

be the definition of a law, how do we know these "laws" are correct outside of our realm? Have we tested them against another Universe?
Click to expand...


1. I am not sure what it is that you read when I post, however, I have made it quite clear that due to natural laws and the impossibility of a infinite regression of causes, it is necessary that a supernatural force exists. I have not assigned any properties to that necessity other than that it does not obey natural law (hence, supernatural).

2. I have little time to discuss possible worlds philosophy; not that it would matter, as laws regarding cause and effect are still held by the majority of possible worlds philosophers.
 
#356
#356
ImTheCrew said:
see comments like these, I'm sure this poster knows people hold their beliefs very dear, and for someone to purposely make fun of that, whether a believer or not, is about as ignorant as you can get.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I bet this little self-righteous comment wouldn't have been made if I were prodding at Scientologists, or Pagans.
 
#357
#357
therealUT said:
1. I am not sure what it is that you read when I post, however, I have made it quite clear that due to natural laws and the impossibility of a infinite regression of causes, it is necessary that a supernatural force exists. I have not assigned any properties to that necessity other than that it does not obey natural law (hence, supernatural).

2. I have little time to discuss possible worlds philosophy; not that it would matter, as laws regarding cause and effect are still held by the majority of possible worlds philosophers.
Click to expand...



1. apples to oranges... if you were saying i think there is a creator, then id understand your point, complete different therefore both "irrational" to the same extent.

2. can all be replied to with my original question
 
#362
#362
ImTheCrew said:
1. apples to oranges... if you were saying i think there is a creator, then id understand your point, complete different therefore both "irrational" to the same extent.

2. can all be replied to with my original question
Click to expand...

1. It is not irrational to say that there is a limit to reason. In fact, that is a priori knowledge and, therefore, self-evident reason.

2. Yes; in all possible worlds the laws of cause and effect would hold. Just like 2+3=5 in all possible worlds, these things are self-evident and condition independent.
 
#363
#363
ImTheCrew said:
You must be, what natural law creates something from nothing?

be the definition of a law, how do we know these "laws" are correct outside of our realm? Have we tested them against another Universe?
Click to expand...

What supernatural one does?
 
#368
#368
ImTheCrew said:
Your first half is waaay off, read just the first few pages... the thread as a typical theme.... its pokes fun at religion, speaking of morals, i know what places to walk on and make fun, Race, religon, etc... is not one of the topics... so by calling it "magical" is just trying to illicit a response.... from what i read.. theres about 40 post bashing religion.. then someone trying to explain their side, and being bashed again.
Click to expand...

I said that religious bashing is not one sided. Christians make it out that everyone in the world is out to get them, its some kind of conspiracy. I've visited religious forums before. The religious take just as many pot shots at the non-believers as they do at them. Hell, even in the Bible you read about men of god mocking the unbelievers, maybe that's why its ok, IDK.

As one who left religion, I've experienced it on both sides. If one gets that hurt over it, it generally means they are weak in their belief.
 
#369
#369
lumberjack4 said:
I said that religious bashing is not one sided. Christians make it out that everyone in the world is out to get them, its some kind of conspiracy. I've visited religious forums before. The religious take just as many pot shots at the non-believers as they do at them. Hell, even in the Bible you read about men of god mocking the unbelievers, maybe that's why its ok, IDK.

As one who left religion, I've experienced it on both sides. If one gets that hurt over it, it generally means they are weak in their belief.
Click to expand...

So you're not upset if I called your mom ugly?
 
#370
#370
129164892341898650.jpg
 
#372
#372
Gramps said:
Oh, oh , oh i can answer that one...

The answer is God..
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And how exactly is that anymore believable than just saying nothing was "created", the universe just "is", existing in a closed manifold, and time is a relative measure that doesn't really exist?
 
#374
#374
therealUT said:
One cannot take Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 literally; they are contradictory. Even if you want to focus solely on just the creation of man, they are still contradictory:






There is a difference in order of creation; therefore, these stories cannot both be taken literally. Feel free to accept them both as allegorical truth.
Click to expand...

Middle-Easterners carried the stories down verbally (no Jesus' name wasn't really Jesus and he didn't have blue eyes) and European monks wrote the Bible more than 200years after the death of Jesus. Noah couldn't have built a boat to carry all of the animals because they weren't all in one place as the continent had different species scattered everywhere. Early man had to have an explanation for his existance, thus the Old Testimate stories. Science has proven these stories untrue, but the social stigma around refuting these stories prevents a lot of people from doing so. The Bible was composed from many different authors, many who contradicted other biblical authors. And there were many, many books left out of the Bible. There are some great lessons to be learned from the Bible. But if you take it literally, you'll find your life very complicated.
 
#375
#375
therealUT said:
Yes, my initial belief is supernatural; and, it is an unadorned supernatural. It is, that there can be no natural explanation for a first cause, there must be a supernatural explanation. That is where I stop.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. The Cosmological Argument does not necessarily entail that there must be a supernatural explanation. In my opinion, it is simply an intriguing physics dilemma. Modern theoretical physics is close to providing an adequate answer which does not violate our perceived natural laws of the known universe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top