Belief... or lack thereof

[Randy_Carson]

First day of mathematics in college: show that 1 is different from 0.
Yeah… we kind of had to learn everything from scratch.
We then accept a particular form of relating the results of successful experiments, so we don’t have to waste time and money re-creating them. Yes, we must believe in some testimony, but it’s controlled, which helps weed out biases. Sometimes, a few do get through and wrong conclusions are upheld as true. With some luck, they are eventually challenged and corrected.

Ah, but you were open-minded and taught these mathematical truths…you did not arrive at them on your own without guidance. And while you may have dabbled in proving some basic math, I doubt that you were asked to reinvent advanced mathematics…there’s simply no need to do so.

It’s interesting…we accept traffic laws and building codes as being necessary for our own well-being and safety, but we are not as willing to accept guidance from others when it comes to ideas about God or religion that would be spiritually beneficial.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bad comparison…
But if you said the boy was deaf… then it could be valid.

God has never created anyone who was spiritually deaf. If He had done so, then the Calvinists are correct, some are predestined for hell.

I hold that person would not be culpable for his own destruction, and God would be immoral for creating such a person. Since God is NOT immoral, such a person could not be created by God.

That there are people who choose to drown out the Divine music with the cacophany of their own lives, however, is another matter.

 

[PRmerger]

“imagined”… curious choice of word…

Oh, dear.

Ohdearohdearohdear.

You haven’t heard of Anselm’s argument for God?

Why oh why do you keep presenting yourself as someone who has examined the arguments for God’s existence?

Please read this:
philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/

It’s a pretty simple summary.

And please note the use of the word “imagined”. It has to do with “conceiving an idea”.

Not imaginary.

Now, you clearly haven’t even read summaries of the basic arguments for God’s existence.

Of course you should start there.

But don’t end there.

You really need to go to the sources and examine their actual writings.

Sheesh!

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger,

That would make sense if Time was a thing that needed creating.

This sounds like you believe in Magic, poca?

Time doesn’t exist. Time suddenly exists. MAGIC caused it to happen!

Really?

 

[PRmerger]

Bad comparison…
But if you said the boy was deaf… then it could be valid.

Nope. The boy has wonderful hearing.

He’s just illiterate and doesn’t wish to be anything more than petulant.

And even if he were deaf, so what?

There’s many a deaf person who would attend a symphony and exclaim at its wonder.

symphony-marketing.com/symphony-marketing-inspires-deaf-students-no-barriers/

 

[You]

Hi PRmerger,

That would make sense if Time was a thing that needed creating. How did the Philosophers come to that conclusion?
How would a God act if Time was non-existent? And there I show the limitation of language… “was”, as if such an event would have been in the past… anyway, I hope you understand the question: how can action exist in a timeless realm?

I keep thinking that the Philosophers didn’t think things through…

…

time is a measurement of the rate of change of matter in a system. no matter means no need to measure rate of its change. not that no action is possible. the action could be spiritual in a spiritual realm with no time.

 

[PRmerger]

Been there a few times… never saw anything crashing to Earth…
Boring speeches. Boring readings. Boring rituals. Boring songs (where applicable).
There was one potentially pleasant feature… somewhere close to the end, you get to “greet” the people around you… if you could position yourself next to a pretty girl…it could become interesting, as the greeting for women is a kiss in the cheek… sadly, the majority was old people… and I never went on my own so I could pick the seat…

Interestingly, coincidentally (?), I happen to have come across this video on Facebook:

youtube.com/watch?v=S33tWZqXhnk

Imagine (yes, imagine) your response to a person who watches it and says:

*BORINGGGG. Where’s the fireworks? Where’s the fringe and glitter and sequins? All he did was move his fingers around a wooden thing over and over and over. He didn’t even have any back up singers. No make up. *

I know this would be my response:

 

[pocaracas]

Ah, but you were open-minded and taught these mathematical truths…you did not arrive at them on your own without guidance. And while you may have dabbled in proving some basic math, I doubt that you were asked to reinvent advanced mathematics…there’s simply no need to do so.

It’s interesting…we accept traffic laws and building codes as being necessary for our own well-being and safety, but we are not as willing to accept guidance from others when it comes to ideas about God or religion that would be spiritually beneficial.

Maybe it’s because we can reason out traffic rules from "first principles"and a bit of human psychology. If everyone drives at the speed they desire, the chance of accident rises. The same goes for disrespecting traffic lights and stop signs, etc…

God is a bit lacking in first principles… for me.

 

[pocaracas]

God has never created anyone who was spiritually deaf.

I give you exhibit A: me!

If He had done so, then the Calvinists are correct, some are predestined for hell.

I hold that person would not be culpable for his own destruction, and God would be immoral for creating such a person. Since God is NOT immoral, such a person could not be created by God.

That there are people who choose to drown out the Divine music with the cacophany of their own lives, however, is another matter.

If there’s a Divine Music, I can’t wait to hear it… My experience at Catholic Mass is far from musical…

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe it’s because we can reason out traffic rules from "first principles"and a bit of human psychology. If everyone drives at the speed they desire, the chance of accident rises. The same goes for disrespecting traffic lights and stop signs, etc…

God is a bit lacking in first principles… for me.

But what you are doing is akin to a teenager saying, “I don’t need no traffic rules! They don’t even make sense. They’re just made up rules by people who want to control us! And I’ve read every single traffic rule there is, as well as the rationale for why they exist, and they’re ALL moronic.”

And when you ask him: don’t you think there’s a very good reason that the city council put a stop sign at that intersection?

He responds: well, I have no idea what a stop sign is. So maybe you should first start by defining that.

 

[pocaracas]

Oh, dear.

Ohdearohdearohdear.

You haven’t heard of Anselm’s argument for God?

Why oh why do you keep presenting yourself as someone who has examined the arguments for God’s existence?

Please read this:
philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/

It’s a pretty simple summary.

And please note the use of the word “imagined”. It has to do with “conceiving an idea”.

Not imaginary.

Now, you clearly haven’t even read summaries of the basic arguments for God’s existence.

Of course you should start there.

But don’t end there.

You really need to go to the sources and examine their actual writings.

Sheesh!

This argument makes no sense.
It feels like someone was desperate to prove that God exists.
Not just any God, but the ultimate top dog God.

And still proves nothing.
Only proves that an imagined, imaginary, fictional entity which he calls God… if it exists, then it must exist.

Step 3 is inside step 2… it is a rehashing of the premise… I’m sure there’s a fallacy about concluding things you put in your premises.

Step 4 seems flawed… if that greatest thing imaginable does not exist (that is, it’s imaginary), then something greater can be imagined… -.-’ really? Like what? it can be imagined to exist?! LOL!
This is an argument that’s been proposed for centuries and I’m the first idiot who notices that it’s flawed? Somehow, I doubt it…
Oh…… even Thomas Aquinas objected to it…

 

[pocaracas]

This sounds like you believe in Magic, poca?

Time doesn’t exist. Time suddenly exists. MAGIC caused it to happen!

Really?

So you know that, somehow it is possible for Time not to exist, huh?
How did you come across such extraordinary information?

 

[PRmerger]

This argument makes no sense.

Sorry.

But since you’d never heard of it prior to my posting, and you haven’t even given it a couple hours’ examination, I think I can dismiss your assessment.

Read. Digest. Consider.

Then come back and we can chat.

 

[pocaracas]

Nope. The boy has wonderful hearing.

He’s just illiterate and doesn’t wish to be anything more than petulant.

And even if he were deaf, so what?

There’s many a deaf person who would attend a symphony and exclaim at its wonder.

symphony-marketing.com/symphony-marketing-inspires-deaf-students-no-barriers/

I think you should read the contents of the link, not just the link itself…
The wonders of synchronized waving of the violin bow…and how their strength of thrust is usually a few seconds behind the maestro’s baton…
They can still not hear it, not get the music.

Beethoven, the well known deaf composer, made his 9th Symphony a bit over the top in a few places, in an attempt to hear something… Full orchestra playing like crazy, plus full chorus singing their lungs out… nothing. The poor guy… it must have felt frustrating, to say the least.
It is indeed a magnificent piece of music, but the composer himself never got to enjoy it, even though he was there to witness it being played for the very first time.

 

[pocaracas]

time is a measurement of the rate of change of matter in a system. no matter means no need to measure rate of its change. not that no action is possible. the action could be spiritual in a spiritual realm with no time.

Are you sure you didn’t just conveniently made up that definition of time?
As far as I’m aware not even philosophers are happy with any definition for Time.
Sure, there are practical definitions like “time is that which is measured by a clock”, but this is ultimately circular.

Also, Time is not a measurement. Time is measured. Clocks provide a measurement of time.

 

[pocaracas]

Interestingly, coincidentally (?), I happen to have come across this video on Facebook:

youtube.com/watch?v=S33tWZqXhnk

Imagine (yes, imagine) your response to a person who watches it and says:

*BORINGGGG. Where’s the fireworks? Where’s the fringe and glitter and sequins? All he did was move his fingers around a wooden thing over and over and over. He didn’t even have any back up singers. No make up. *

I know this would be my response:

Nice music, thanks for finding it!
How did you know I prefer instrumentals over songs?

As to your description… mute the video and look at it for the whole 4 minutes.
You can tell the guy is enjoying that… but what that is, without sound, is baffling.

 

[You]

Are you sure you didn’t just conveniently made up that definition of time?
As far as I’m aware not even philosophers are happy with any definition for Time.
Sure, there are practical definitions like “time is that which is measured by a clock”, but this is ultimately circular.

Also, Time is not a measurement. Time is measured. Clocks provide a measurement of time.

time only exists because this is a material universe, the motion of a planet takes time and its motion through time is measured by its change over time, or its change over time is what we measure as time.

 

[PRmerger]

So you know that, somehow it is possible for Time not to exist, huh?
How did you come across such extraordinary information?

Logic, man. Pure logic.

If time has always existed, then we would never get to the point we are today.

But we are here at today.

Therefore time had a beginning.

 

[Bradski]

I confused as to why you don’t understand.

This seems pretty logical.

For God to have created time, he can’t be in time…therefore, he has to be eternal.
He can’t have had a beginning, because that means he was created. And if God is created, then he’s not god, right?

God has to be omnipotent because if he’s not, then there is the possibility of something more powerful that can be imagined, and that means he can’t be God, since God is he who nothing greater can be imagined.

And God has to be omniscient because if there’s some deficit in this entity’s knowledge, then he can’t be God, since, as already stated God is he who nothing greater can be imagined.

You didn’t ask why God should have certain characteristics. And if you insist that He is the greatest thing you can conceive, then He is bound to have those you describe above.

But they are not required for an given Entity to have created the Universe. Which is what you asked in post 212.

E doesn’t have to be eternal. I will grant, for the pumrpose of this point, that E must have existed outside of time before time was created, but once time was created, then why must E
remain in existence? Who is to say that E did not become, at the moment of creation, a part of the universe and then ceased to exist in time. Who is to say that E did not become the universe itself and therefore ceased to exist as E? Who is to say that if the universe ceases to exist then so will E?

Yes, God doesn’t have these characteristics. Yes God represents that which no more powerful can be imagined, but we are not looking to confirm your God. We are looking to see if something can be something other that eternal and have created the universe. Clearly, we can imagine (using your term) something that can.

Now, if E is not eternal, then it will cease to exist. We cannot therefore describe something as omnipotent or omniscient if it doesn’t exist. That aside, there is nothing that demands that whatever E is, it has to be omnipotent. E may have no more control over events than we do. Yes, God is omnipotent, but we are not looking to describe God.

And there is nothing at all that demands E must be omniscient. Nothing. Except that you demand that it has the same characteristics as God and God is omniscient, therefore E cannot be…God. But that is not what we are doing.

You seem trapped into this loop caused by Anselms argument. Which, you don’t seem to grasp. Is only an argument for God. It only works if God exists. It starts with the answer and then describes characteristics of whatever we need to get to that answer.

It is literally the most bizarre argument I know. It is used all the time. But the emperor has no clothes. It only works if you want it to work.

Now can you please address why E, in the first instance, has to be eternal. And please, no repeating that if it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be the greatest thing etc etc. It doesn’t have to be. Only your God has to be because that characteristic is demanded of Him (thus automatically excluding all other options, which should be a clue as to why everyone insiste He has it).

We can look at the other characteristics later. But let’s go with eternal for now.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hehe… crimes do require a human intervention.
And first, you must establish that it was a crime and not…some accident or some suicide…
You want me to establish that I do have a life after death that needs thinking about and then you present me with this God as the most likely entity that is in charge of that life after death.
Well… I await the crime, before I go out to find the criminal.

Look around you, bro.

There are four ways to die, and only one of them requires an intruder. Suicides, accidental, and natural deaths can occur without any evidence from outside the room. But murders typically involve suspects external to the crime scene. If there’s evidence of an outside intruder, homicide detectives have to prepare for a chase. Intruders turn death scenes into crime scenes.

Using his expertise as a cold-case detective with the Los Angeles police department, J. Warner Wallace examines eight critical pieces of evidence in the “crime scene” of the universe to determine if they point to a Divine Intruder. If you have ever wondered if something (or someone) outside the natural realm created the universe and everything in it, this is the book for you.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)