Whateverist Wrote: b) comes from a) and a) comes from ... oops ... here we just have to confess how puny we are and how mighty art our God.  Join us and be as an infant in the loving arms of our lord.  Abandon your pride and dignity and trust in God.

A while back I actually tried to figure out ultra-nature in the sense that it would be an even higher level of nature than super-nature. 

Similar to exponentiation being a higher level to addition and multiplication. 

It either doesn't work or I can't figure it out. 

Does this sound crazy?  I'm not crazy right? 

No, I'm definitely not crazy.

There could (in theory) be another plane of existence from which things can affect our plane, but we can't affect them. A one-way connection. This would be a kind of "super nature".

There could then, of course, be another level above that one, working in the same way.

A computer simulation could be an example of this. We would be a "super nature" with respect to however the simulation might manifest.

(March 10, 2018 at 10:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:24 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Oh, I see. Now we're going to pretend you didn't at all equivocate between "parsimonious" and "simple". The posts are there, dude. You can't tap dance your way out of this one.

LOL.  Every time RR makes a mistake he does this.  Rather than just admit he was wrong, he pretends he doesn’t understand what the other person is talking about for ten pages until they get frustrated and take off.

You may notice that when someone answers the question to clarify their objection, that the conversation moves forward. It doesn’t have to go on and on for 10 pages. Perhaps it is my fault for wanting the complaint to be clearly and logically stated so I don’t have to guess. However if you want me to admit that I am wrong, then you need to provide some reason for me to do so. I don’t think that is too much to ask. On the other hand, you always coming in to trash talk me, and not contribute to the idea at hand, doesn’t add much of anything to the conversation.

(March 11, 2018 at 2:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 10:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: LOL.  Every time RR makes a mistake he does this.  Rather than just admit he was wrong, he pretends he doesn’t understand what the other person is talking about for ten pages until they get frustrated and take off.

You may notice that when someone answers the question to clarify their objection, that the conversation moves forward. It doesn’t have to go on and on for 10 pages.  Perhaps it is my fault for wanting the complaint to be clearly and logically stated so I don’t have to guess.  However if you want me to admit that I am wrong, then you need to provide some reason for me to do so.  I don’t think that is too much to ask.  On the other hand, you always coming in to trash talk me, and not contribute to the idea at hand, doesn’t add much of anything to the conversation.

I contribute often, and  to many discussions here at AF.  That I pop in and peanut gallery once in a while shouldn’t be so offensive.  I’m only commenting because this is my personal experience with you, on more than one occasion.  I’m not sure why you do it because you seem like an intelligent guy, but I find it 50/50 irritating and amusing...so...sometimes I say stuff.

(March 11, 2018 at 9:52 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 2:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You may notice that when someone answers the question to clarify their objection, that the conversation moves forward. It doesn’t have to go on and on for 10 pages.  Perhaps it is my fault for wanting the complaint to be clearly and logically stated so I don’t have to guess.  However if you want me to admit that I am wrong, then you need to provide some reason for me to do so.  I don’t think that is too much to ask.  On the other hand, you always coming in to trash talk me, and not contribute to the idea at hand, doesn’t add much of anything to the conversation.

I contribute often, and  to many discussions here at AF.  That I pop in and peanut gallery once in a while shouldn’t be so offensive.  I’m only commenting because this is my personal experience with you, on more than one occasion.  I’m not sure why you do it because you seem like an intelligent guy, but I find it 50/50 irritating and amusing...so...sometimes I say stuff.

And so RR games continue . And of course he wraps it in the guise of "advancing the conversation " again it's the eye witness thread all over again . 

(March 11, 2018 at 9:52 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 2:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You may notice that when someone answers the question to clarify their objection, that the conversation moves forward. It doesn’t have to go on and on for 10 pages.  Perhaps it is my fault for wanting the complaint to be clearly and logically stated so I don’t have to guess.  However if you want me to admit that I am wrong, then you need to provide some reason for me to do so.  I don’t think that is too much to ask.  On the other hand, you always coming in to trash talk me, and not contribute to the idea at hand, doesn’t add much of anything to the conversation.

I contribute often, and  to many discussions here at AF.  That I pop in and peanut gallery once in a while shouldn’t be so offensive.  I’m only commenting because this is my personal experience with you, on more than one occasion.  I’m not sure why you do it because you seem like an intelligent guy, but I find it 50/50 irritating and amusing...so...sometimes I say stuff.

Well... unlike some, I don’t argue both sides or for the other person I think that they should do more work, then just shouting “your wrong”.

(March 11, 2018 at 2:38 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 11, 2018 at 2:14 am)Succubus Wrote: No! Fuckin no!

Yes! Fuckin yes!

Quote:One. Last. Time.

Where did the universe come from.

a) God made it.

b) We don't know.

Now apply the razor. And this is the last time Y'all have to get it right.

Once again, you can't apply the razor here because 'b' is just a statement of ignorance. It's not an attempt to explain anything, dude.

I know. I was trying to explain how it is so easy to confuse the two. It's wrong because its the simplest but at the same time it it also correct in that it makes the least assumptions. No I don't think I've clarified things at all. I've  made a proper balls of it.

(March 9, 2018 at 9:36 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: As far as Yahweh's universality, I didn't mean to quote mine or strawman, and you have a point. The entire quote does elaborate more. But I'd have to say the quote in its entirety still misses the point. I assume you've read the OT. It describes a finite god-- the god of a single people. The Jews. The NT describes a new covenant, but it doesn't really describe a new god. So,according to the Bible, where Christians go to learn about their deity, we are dealing with a finite god . The author of the article has a well-developed God concept, and is informed by the likes of Anselm and Aquinas. Most Christians aren't. And it is rather unfair to atheists to "call them out" for criticizing the finite god in the Bible, when the vast majority of Christians believe in this finite god. But don't take my word for it--walk into a Baptist church and describe the philosopher's god to the people inside. They will sneer at it.

I am assuming you don't mean 'finite' as in not infinite. I assume you mean limited in scope in some way. I don't think that is right. There are references spread throughout the OT of non-Jews coming to some sort of knowledge of God. 

The book of Job (who was not a Jew) - probably one of the oldest stories in the OT
Any character in the OT that predates Abraham
Baalam (Numbers 22)
Priest of the order of Melchizedek Genesis 14:18-20; Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 7
The book of Jonah (God working in the hearts of Ninevah) 
Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:24 and following)

These stories show that God was known and at work in the lives of Gentiles during OT times. Just because a Jewish history did not chronicle more events, does not mean they did not happen. As such, the God of the OT was interested in all people and had a universal perspective--a characteristic that was fully manifested in the NT in verses like John 3:16. I don't think a complete picture of God from the OT to the NT is wanting in any way.

Let me know if I totally misunderstood your point.

Quote:It may annoy you personally to have your beliefs compared to the pagans whose gods' demands must be met or they will ruin next year's crops. Well guess what? There are plenty of Christians who blame natural disasters on the fact that America legalised gay marriage. Plenty of atheists on this forum argue vehemently against such illogic. The question is: if we don't do it, who will?

It sucks that so many rational believers feel the need to answer insults thrown at ignorant believers. My beef is with them. You and I can have a civil discussion about why you believe, and I don't. But for so many others, there is no rational discussion. We need to bow down to their tribal god or he will create sinkholes over gay wedding cakes. Someone needs to argue against this bullshit, and in the course of my arguments I reserve the right to call illogical belief which is inseparable from paganism out for what it is.

I don't disagree with anything you said above.

(March 12, 2018 at 8:47 pm)SteveII Wrote: Let me know if I totally misunderstood your point.

You know, Steve, I actually think we see eye to eye here on the big picture. I could accuse you of lawyering. (Why doesn't the OT tell stories about Chinese people from the ancient world who opened their hearts and minds to Yahweh? I didn't know that Job wasn't a Jew, and that was interesting to learn. But neither was he an aboriginal Australian. Just like Zeus was concerned chiefly with people situated around the Mediterranean, Yahweh is concerned with ancient tribesman around the Middle East. You can find a few verses that say otherwise, but the rest of the Bible speaks to my point.) But I don't want to accuse you of lawyering. I want to ask: What if Yahweh is universal? What then?

If you are correct in your assumption that Yahweh is a universal God, then you must leave space in your imagination for a concept of Divine Logos or Cosmic Christ. These are terms coined by philosopher John Hick. According to Hick, there is one divine force but it is understood somewhat differently according to who perceives it. Although different peoples perceive the same divine force, they interpret it through the lens of their particular culture. According to Hick's reasoning, the Hindu Brahman, the Chinese Tao, and Yahweh are actually the same entity. This is problematic though if it is true. Most Christians would outright reject this. ("Their god is not MY God.") But if they do, aren't they demonstrating how "finite" their god really is? Hick's conception is really the only way of seeing God as a universal figure. Otherwise he is understood as finite... related to a particular culture to serve a particular purpose.

Pluralism stretches back to antiquity and it was the very force early christians sought to eradicate in rome.  

If they were ever going to find it compelling, they would have by now.