question about Christianity

#454
#454
therealUT said:
Can you define "physical being"?

Can you offer a proof for the existence of these "physical beings" as external to your mind?
Click to expand...

Not needed. The underlying assumption here is everything had to come from something more complex. Which still begs the question of where the "creator" came from.

No, therefore nothing can be explained and all beliefs equally true.
Click to expand...

Some beliefs are manifestly more valid then others, that is a fact. Saying otherwise is like giving yourself a trophy for admitting defeat. When it comes to beliefs, and why we believe them, there is a continuum from absurd nonsense...to very useful.
 
#455
#455
rjd970 said:
Not needed. The underlying assumption here is everything had to come from something more complex. Which still begs the question of where the "creator" came from.



Some beliefs are manifestly more valid then others, that is a fact. Saying otherwise is like giving yourself a trophy for admitting defeat. When it comes to beliefs, and why we believe them, there is a continuum from absurd nonsense...to very useful.
Click to expand...

I disagree... It may be cheap
But it's a legitimate answer... It can all be swept under a rug of " the limitations of our minds being unknown "....
 
#459
#459
ImTheCrew said:
I disagree... It may be cheap
But it's a legitimate answer... It can all be swept under a rug of " the limitations of our minds being unknown "....
Click to expand...

So you solve one problem by creating a new entity with the same exact problem as the one you had before, but you now make him supernatural so you don't have to explain how he came into being? Because its incomprehensible to humans.

I agree that I can't comprehend that line of reasoning either.
 
#460
#460
lumberjack4 said:
So you solve one problem by creating a new entity with the same exact problem as the one you had before, but you now make him supernatural so you don't have to explain how he came into being? Because its incomprehensible to humans.

I agree that I can't comprehend that line of reasoning either.
Click to expand...

Exactly... The same reason the supernatural aspect of nothing creating something... We currently can not comprehend nothing, let alone how it created the universe... So yes anything is possible.
 
#463
#463
ImTheCrew said:
No, therefore nothing can be explained and all beliefs equally true.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect; it would only mean that everything must be explained a priori. Whether or not I can prove the existence of the external world, I still know that I exist; therefore, I still must explain. These explanations are not based on a system of beliefs, they are based on reason.
 
#467
#467
NewToVolCountry said:
Does anyone else see God as a vengeful bastard and Jesus as a forgiving, good guy?
Click to expand...

Jesus, while a worthwhile moral teacher, had his own moral flaws. Specifically, what power did he have to "forgive"? When he went around forgiving people of their sins, did he consult with all parties involved, especially those who may have been hurt or cheated by said sinner? The gospels never mention it. Jesus just did it. Seems to me, to be a true moral judge, all sides have to be heard.

You hurt or cheat me, I can forgive you. But some yahoo coming and forgiving you for what you did to me is morally ambigous at best, and straight-up unfair at worst.
 
#468
#468
rjd970 said:
Jesus, while a worthwhile moral teacher, had his own moral flaws. Specifically, what power did he have to "forgive"? When he went around forgiving people of their sins, did he consult with all parties involved, especially those who may have been hurt or cheated by said sinner? The gospels never mention it. Jesus just did it. Seems to me, to be a true moral judge, all sides have to be heard.

You hurt or cheat me, I can forgive you. But some yahoo coming and forgiving you for what you did to me is morally ambigous at best, and straight-up unfair at worst.
Click to expand...

Assuming he is God (in your case) why would he need to ask all parties?

If he was nothing more than a man that had some worth while morals that he taught, you would be 100% correct.
 
#469
#469
rjd970 said:
Jesus, while a worthwhile moral teacher, had his own moral flaws. Specifically, what power did he have to "forgive"? When he went around forgiving people of their sins, did he consult with all parties involved, especially those who may have been hurt or cheated by said sinner? The gospels never mention it. Jesus just did it. Seems to me, to be a true moral judge, all sides have to be heard.

You hurt or cheat me, I can forgive you. But some yahoo coming and forgiving you for what you did to me is morally ambigous at best, and straight-up unfair at worst.
Click to expand...

If you mug two guys walking down the street, can one of them forgive you for mugging him, or would it take both of them?

If you rob me, you have harmed me and sinned against God. God can forgive you for sinning against him, even if I don't. That is the situation with Jesus.

Why is that a difficult concept?
 
#470
#470
KiffinKiller said:
I saw someone use the Descartes explanation for God. Love it.

"I have an idea in my head that there is a God, which means God put it there. Therefore, God must exist."
Click to expand...


this makes absolutely zero logical sense to me. must not be on the same wavelength as ole descartes
 
#471
#471
Jesus could not forgive because Jesus wasn't involved in the event that needed forgiving for.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#472
#472
VOLatile said:
Jesus could not forgive because Jesus wasn't involved in the event that needed forgiving for.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That would depend on whether or not he was the son of God. Obviously you and rjd don't believe that he is which is why it makes no sense.
 
#473
#473
therealUT said:
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 following two separate chronologies. This distinction leaves the reader forced to either accept the first as literal truth, the second as literal truth, or neither as literal truth. Since their is no instruction as to which to accept as literal truth, the selection of one over the other would simply be personal preference; therefore, it is prudent to remain agnostic toward the literal truth of both and, until given a definitive reason to choose one, view both as allegorical.

As to the second question regarding darkness, God says "let there be Light" then he views light and sees that it is good. This is the first day; he has yet to create the celestial orbs or the sun. Light can only be interpreted in a metaphorical manner and it must be interpreted as absolute. It is not a stretch to interpret it as absolute goodness; regardless, though, it is "good" according to God. He separates this from darkness (notice, he does not destroy darkness); this darkness is absolute, there are still not stars, no sun, etc. He never qualifies dark as "good"; this is the only omission of "good" from any of his acts during the 6-day narrative. Whether the absolute darkness is absolute evil or is just not good, and therefore a gradation of evil, is immaterial in the critique: God, a being that is assigned the properties of omnibenevolence and omnipotence according to Judaism and Christianity, has either created an imperfection (a degree of evil) or has allowed it. His creation, from the beginning of the Bible, is regarded as imperfect if one carefully reads Genesis 1.
Click to expand...

I would like to ask you some questions, if you don't mind.

1) Is it possible that ch1 and ch2 are referring to different things? For example, the creation timeline. If the ch1 timeline is accurate, could God then plant a garden special after the rest, including man, was created? Could he then create animals from nothing to inhabit that special place, just as he did to inhabit the rest of the world? Why is it a necessary conclusion that the animals referred to in ch2 are original creations of animals of kinds that did not previously exist? Isn't ch1 the story of the creation of the universe, while ch2 is only the story of the creation of the garden?

2) How do you define darkness as a thing? Is it not the absence of a thing, the absence of light?

3) If you posit the idea of a God that can create space, time and matter, is it far fetched to believe that he can create light without a lightsource other than his own will?
 
#474
#474
KiffinKiller said:
I saw someone use the Descartes explanation for God. Love it.

"I have an idea in my head that there is a God, which means God put it there. Therefore, God must exist."
Click to expand...

ut 4 me said:
this makes absolutely zero logical sense to me. must not be on the same wavelength as ole descartes
Click to expand...

Descartes argument which you are referencing is in his third mediation. Known as his "Causal Argument" for the Existence of God. Similar in ways to St. Augustine.

Premise one: Something cannot come from nothing.
Premise two: Formal reality and objective reality are essentially equal. Therefore, causation of formal reality may be comparable to objective reality.

Argument: Humans are able to think of perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. This idea has infinite objective reality. However, humans are are finite and imperfect. Furthermore, they have limited formal reality (being finite vs infinite). The cause of such an idea could only come from a being with the same characteristics of the idea: infinite and perfect.

Same Argument (less philosophical language): Humans are able to think of perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Since there is nothing on Earth in which humans could possibly gain that idea via experience; such an idea must have come a priori. In essence, you must have been born with idea inherently planted in your mind. The only entity which capable of this feat is God.

Descartes gives another argument for the existence of God in Meditations V. Similar in ways to St. Anselm's "Ontological Argument."

The idea of the most perfect being (God) entails certain implied characteristics. Known characteristics of God: omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, infinite, perfect. The latter being the most important. Perfect implies that God lacks nothing. Therefore, God could not lack existence. Essentially, the essence of a perfect God entails existence. As Descartes said, "We can no more think of God without existence than we can think of a mountain without a valley."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top