P
pocaracas
Guest
(my underline)
Your words deceive you… it’s still a belief… You’re still wanting people to believe in an extra bit about that god.
Atheists Seek to Erect ‘No Gods’ Display at Arkansas Capitol After Ten Commandments Approved
- Status
Your words deceive you… it’s still a belief… You’re still wanting people to believe in an extra bit about that god.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Did you believe your teacher when she told you the earth is round, or did you perform the scientific experiment to prove it logically? If you performed the experiment, did you believe beforehand that it would produce the correct results? If so, how did you prove that belief would? Did you independently prove everything else the teachers told you? If not, why not? Do you reject everything they said that you did not bother to prove? I think you take a lot more on faith than you want to admit.
8
808Catholic
Guest
If I may interject: God wants you to believe in Him. He started at the beginning when He created Adam and Eve then continued on by sending His only Son Christ Jesus. Catholic/Christians are called by Christ to spread the Gospel (literally “good news”) to all people so that they may come to believe and follow Him as well. It’s up to each person to hear God’s call in our voices and to answer; not to us but to Him. God Bless you.
P
pocaracas
Guest
Tell me, what time is it in your neck of the woods? night-time? It is night in here. Something tells me it’s not yet night time where you are… Were the Earth not round, how would this discrepancy occur?
Besides, I was first introduced to the experiment. It was thoroughly explained and the result made sense.
I could do the same experiment, over and over, but I don’t need to. I’ve traveled by airplane, and saw the curvature on the horizon.
Even if I hadn’t done this other experiment, the one provided by the teacher seems feasible enough and requires no mental trickery… just observation of what is there to be seen.
Like said above, the things taught to me about the world had an accompanying “experimental procedure” which seemed completely reasonable and relied in no mental trickery.
Some, I did myself - in college, I had some 4 or 5 semesters of “experimental physics” - got to do lots of stuff from measuring the gravitational constant to particle decay, to measuring the mass of an electron, to the observation of diffraction patterns… ah… good old times.
To put it in a general way: I accept experimental results, from experiments performed by other people, if the experiment’s description looks reasonable to me and to the peer reviewers who allow the publishing of the papers where these results are shown to the world.
Even so, it is known that this method is not without faults. Erroneous experimental results have been published and taught and accepted as true. Some have been discovered… who knows how many remain untouched?.. perhaps because the discoveries are not relevant, no one bothers to repeat it, nor even recheck in light of new knowledge…
You know… if you really wanted to hit me with this “you believe in a lot more things than you may think”, you could have gone at it in a completely better way.
I believe my wife is not having an affair.
I believe I will celebrate my father’s birthday in a few days.
I believe this message will reach you in good health (as good as it was when you wrote that last thing, at least).
I believe my friends are not there just for when they need cash assistance.
etc…
Can I perform the experiment for any of these beliefs?.. perhaps… some require waiting, some require trust, or lack thereof.
Are you still wanting to equate these beliefs to the belief in the existence of a magical para-normal entity who is responsible for the very existence of the Universe?
I think I need to create a new thread…
(why settle for belief in such a being?)
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
You have more belief than I thought.Tell me, what time is it in your neck of the woods? night-time? It is night in here. Something tells me it’s not yet night time where you are… Were the Earth not round, how would this discrepancy occur?
Besides, I was first introduced to the experiment. It was thoroughly explained and the result made sense.
I could do the same experiment, over and over, but I don’t need to. I’ve traveled by airplane, and saw the curvature on the horizon.
Even if I hadn’t done this other experiment, the one provided by the teacher seems feasible enough and requires no mental trickery… just observation of what is there to be seen.
Like said above, the things taught to me about the world had an accompanying “experimental procedure” which seemed completely reasonable and relied in no mental trickery.
Some, I did myself - in college, I had some 4 or 5 semesters of “experimental physics” - got to do lots of stuff from measuring the gravitational constant to particle decay, to measuring the mass of an electron, to the observation of diffraction patterns… ah… good old times.
To put it in a general way: I accept experimental results, from experiments performed by other people, if the experiment’s description looks reasonable to me and to the peer reviewers who allow the publishing of the papers where these results are shown to the world.
Even so, it is known that this method is not without faults. Erroneous experimental results have been published and taught and accepted as true. Some have been discovered… who knows how many remain untouched?.. perhaps because the discoveries are not relevant, no one bothers to repeat it, nor even recheck in light of new knowledge…
You know… if you really wanted to hit me with this “you believe in a lot more things than you may think”, you could have gone at it in a completely better way.
I believe my wife is not having an affair.
I believe I will celebrate my father’s birthday in a few days.
I believe this message will reach you in good health (as good as it was when you wrote that last thing, at least).
I believe my friends are not there just for when they need cash assistance.
etc…
Can I perform the experiment for any of these beliefs?.. perhaps… some require waiting, some require trust, or lack thereof.
Are you still wanting to equate these beliefs to the belief in the existence of a magical para-normal entity who is responsible for the very existence of the Universe?
I think I need to create a new thread…
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
It is a fair question…
Although, is God to be considered substantive? That is, is it possible to assess that He might have mass? If not, might it be considered that the question might be equally applicable to a God-driven creation scenario?
P
pocaracas
Guest
Yep, but not in magic.
P
pocaracas
Guest
One can go broader: is god a part of reality?It is a fair question…
Although, is God to be considered substantive? That is, is it possible to assess that He might have mass? If not, might it be considered that the question might be equally applicable to a God-driven creation scenario?
If yes, then it must be measurable somehow…
If not… well… the name says it all: unreal.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
Okay, so, just to the logic of “If you are going to have monument X, you must include monument Y,” I think the court’s ruling (written by Alito here) in another case is pretty convincing:
“If government entities must maintain viewpoint neutrality in their selection of donated monuments, they must either ‘brace themselves for an influx of clutter’ or face the pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments. See 499 F. 3d, at 1175 (McConnell, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Every jurisdiction that has accepted a donated war memorial may be asked to provide equal treatment for a donated monument questioning the cause for which the veterans fought. New York City, having accepted a donated statue of one heroic dog (Balto, the sled dog who brought medicine to Nome, Alaska, during a diphtheria epidemic)7 may be pressed to accept monuments for other dogs who are claimed to be equally worthy of commemoration. The obvious truth of the matter is that if public parks were considered to be traditional public forums for the purpose of erecting privately donated monuments, most parks would have little choice but to refuse all such donations.”
Or fill every park with a million monuments. It really isn’t workable. You would have to ban, literally, all monuments. That strikes me as not really within the intent of the first amendment. While on that score, nor is viewpoint neutrality, even on government speech, even with regard to government speech about God. You’re pretty far from establishing a specific church as your state church when your biggest problem is the ten commandments are on your steps.
“If government entities must maintain viewpoint neutrality in their selection of donated monuments, they must either ‘brace themselves for an influx of clutter’ or face the pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments. See 499 F. 3d, at 1175 (McConnell, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Every jurisdiction that has accepted a donated war memorial may be asked to provide equal treatment for a donated monument questioning the cause for which the veterans fought. New York City, having accepted a donated statue of one heroic dog (Balto, the sled dog who brought medicine to Nome, Alaska, during a diphtheria epidemic)7 may be pressed to accept monuments for other dogs who are claimed to be equally worthy of commemoration. The obvious truth of the matter is that if public parks were considered to be traditional public forums for the purpose of erecting privately donated monuments, most parks would have little choice but to refuse all such donations.”
Or fill every park with a million monuments. It really isn’t workable. You would have to ban, literally, all monuments. That strikes me as not really within the intent of the first amendment. While on that score, nor is viewpoint neutrality, even on government speech, even with regard to government speech about God. You’re pretty far from establishing a specific church as your state church when your biggest problem is the ten commandments are on your steps.
C
claymcdermott
Guest
To the other point: how does it follow that if something is real it must therefore be measurable, especially when I infer you chose that word to distinguish it from experiencable? That is a pretty big jump.
I can give you plenty of examples of the real, which were not measurable for most of human history.
I can also give you the example of math, a real thing, which is not measurable, but only illustratable (Russel once said that all religion was a mistake inspired by math, but he granted the reality of the non-empirical).
Unless you posit that reason is an illusion of course; in which case there is an internal contradiction in rationally arguing against reason, letting alone the question of, “An illusion when compared to what reality?” [And oh, the discussions of analogical being begin!]
Even if one couldn’t point to these things, that would be a big jump. The best you could do in the absence of evidence (or convincing argument) one way or the other would be agnosticism. And I have never really been sympathetic to probabilistic assessments of deity’s existence, because, what does that mean? Clearly not anything like how probability has ever been measured elsewhere.
But anyway, one can point to these, so, let’s skip it. To your point: is God part of reality? That is a very interesting question, more than you may know. Is reality part of reality? Is the quality of being real, part of reality? Is “being” part of reality? Is “Being?”
What I am getting at is that Bertrand Russel was closer with his thought on math early in his career than he was with his teapot later on. A more developed philosophy (such as that of Aquinas or Augustine) does not see God as something or someone existing as a thing, in the same sense that other things exist, existing over and above them.
Not trying to convince you here really, because I don’t really have the time for the conversation (med school is a PAIN), and in fact I probably won’t check the forum after this
, largely because I think this is an ironically bad forum for this kind of convo, but throwing it out there as topics open for consideration and your investigation. 
I can give you plenty of examples of the real, which were not measurable for most of human history.
I can also give you the example of math, a real thing, which is not measurable, but only illustratable (Russel once said that all religion was a mistake inspired by math, but he granted the reality of the non-empirical).
Unless you posit that reason is an illusion of course; in which case there is an internal contradiction in rationally arguing against reason, letting alone the question of, “An illusion when compared to what reality?” [And oh, the discussions of analogical being begin!]
Even if one couldn’t point to these things, that would be a big jump. The best you could do in the absence of evidence (or convincing argument) one way or the other would be agnosticism. And I have never really been sympathetic to probabilistic assessments of deity’s existence, because, what does that mean? Clearly not anything like how probability has ever been measured elsewhere.
But anyway, one can point to these, so, let’s skip it. To your point: is God part of reality? That is a very interesting question, more than you may know. Is reality part of reality? Is the quality of being real, part of reality? Is “being” part of reality? Is “Being?”
What I am getting at is that Bertrand Russel was closer with his thought on math early in his career than he was with his teapot later on. A more developed philosophy (such as that of Aquinas or Augustine) does not see God as something or someone existing as a thing, in the same sense that other things exist, existing over and above them.
Not trying to convince you here really, because I don’t really have the time for the conversation (med school is a PAIN), and in fact I probably won’t check the forum after this
, largely because I think this is an ironically bad forum for this kind of convo, but throwing it out there as topics open for consideration and your investigation.
8
808Catholic
Guest
I don’t know God the Father but Christ His Son is God Incarnate so Jesus had a physical nature that could be described in terms of height, weight, body build, hair color, etc. So, if you are asking, “how can God come from nothing?” I would answer “He didn’t. He always was, is and will be. God exists out of time; He created time.”It is a fair question…
Although, is God to be considered substantive? That is, is it possible to assess that He might have mass? If not, might it be considered that the question might be equally applicable to a God-driven creation scenario?
R
robsully
Guest
Interesting, can you provide evidence of this claim?
8
808Catholic
Guest
Evidence as in scientific evidence? No. I believe God exists outside of time because He was there to create the universe. Following this logic, He set the universe into motion physically and, by implication, created time to measure the start of motion. Catholics believe God is not just immortal, He’s eternal. He existed before time and will continue to exist after the end of the universe.
R
robsully
Guest
Once again, evidence?
8
808Catholic
Guest
And again, I have none. Belief is all I have.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
I suspect equating Jesus to his mass while on Earth must be a form of cheating…for did he not simply borrow these materials to be made manifest in an earthly form…?
What I was actually asking is how God, who might have no mass (and therefor be equated to no physical thing), have created the universe? Essentially, how might substantive nothing have created substantive something…?
D
DCNBILL
Guest
No, my words say what they mean and I do not want people to believe an extra bit about God I want them to believe the whole truth about God. You seem to beileve that God is not accessible, that He does not communicate Himself to us, this is decisively not the case, He does open Himself to those who would seek Him. You believe this is not the case because you have not experienced Him and this is for good reason.
8
808Catholic
Guest
I believe you and I are approaching Jesus’ Incarnation from slightly different perspectives. If I’m reading your response correctly, you believe Jesus was a 100% spirit Who used physical material to manifest on earth; sort of like wearing a glove. When He was ready to return to heaven, He simply took off the “glove” and left in His original form. Is that fairly accurate?I suspect equating Jesus to his mass while on Earth must be a form of cheating…for did he not simply borrow these materials to be made manifest in an earthly form…?
What I was actually asking is how God, who might have no mass (and therefor be equated to no physical thing), have created the universe? Essentially, how might substantive nothing have created substantive something…?
I believe the Jesus is the Second Person in the Holy Trinity (God). As such, He did not borrow. He created. All of creation is His and all of creation obeys Him. While we can change the conventions of “up” and “down”, He can change the reality of up and down! In becoming God made man, Jesus did something that has never been done before or since, He made it possible for God to be one of us. 100% Divine and 100% human at the same time.
Our points of view, I believe, rests on how we believe in creation. If creation just happened, then it might be as you suggest: an immaterial being would have a serious challenge creating a material world. If creation is the thoughtful action of the omnipotent and omniscient God, then there is no challenge for Him at all to create material from His thought alone. What remains a challenge for Christians is reconciling the mystery of God and of His creation. That’s where I am in my faith journey and suspect it will take me my entire life to unravel (if at all).
God Bless you.
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Thank you for the clarification…it certainly is interesting to consider…
So would it be fair to consider that the entirety of creation might be merely the mental reasonings of God? If so would the universe technically exist inside of God?
Thank you… I wish you well in return…God Bless you.
8
808Catholic
Guest
Thank you for the clarification…it certainly is interesting to consider…
So would it be fair to consider that the entirety of creation might be merely the mental reasonings of God? If so would the universe technically exist inside of God?
***I suppose that is not very far off from Catholic/Christian teachings. We believe we only exist because God continues to want us to exist. Same is true for the entire universe. We also believe there will come a time when God will say “this is the end” and the universe will cease to exist. In a sense, God is everywhere and every time so all of creation is encompassed by God. However, I’d like to offer a slight revision to your last question: the universe exists BECAUSE of God. That’s the Catholic/Christian belief. Have a Blessed Day! ***
Thank you… I wish you well in return…
- Status