(September 22, 2009 at 12:11 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Is this sufficient?

For what? It's your fairy tale and you obviously believe it....or at least profess that you do.

I'm more interested in why you are so terrified of life that you feel the need to invent such beings?

I am terrified by the mystery of life - thus I seek an answer to explain this existence.

I too, am in awe of the mysteries in life, but I'd rather say "I don't know", than accept a fallacious explanation. Without evidence, I shall not accept any proposition (hopefully!), I wouldn't say I was terrified though...

EvF

I'm not terrified either. I'm rather enjoying life. Sure there are its ups and downs but thats the flavour!

Bottom line: I control my life, seek to make it as beautiful as I possibly can, touching a few lives along the way if possible, and at the end of the day, I return to which I was originally.

Retorth Wrote:Where does the holy spirit come in your explanation?

As I understand it the Holy Spirit is just another manifestation of God - through true believers (not social tag-alongs or false prophets). The Holy Spirit is used by believers to describe being exposed to the mind of God in a way, however brief or weakly (e.g. the Spirit convicts believers and guides them in the right direction).

(September 22, 2009 at 9:10 am)Dotard Wrote: So you are saying two physically beings share the same mind?

I meant one was physical, one is not physical, and that they basically share the same mind.

Dotard Wrote:If so then when Jesus was praying or talking to God he was in essence talking to, and answering, himself? Classic symptom of a split personality disorder except instead of one person with two "minds" (personalities) you have two persons claiming to share one mind. However one of these persons goes on record as speaking to the other, asking it favors (forgive them, they know not what they do). The actions of the character of Jesus in the bible betrays your apologetic.

Jesus was limited by his physicality - so I would consider these examples to be like "thinking out loud".

Dotard Wrote:Two can play that game.

It's a dirty game that no one should play though.

http://www.prostunts.net/gallery/pics/Ca...losion.jpg <--they sure can be guided with conviction

The non-physical is mindless... the non-physical has no brain

Thinking out loud about talking to himself?

Well EvF and Retorth, that's your prerogative, but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important topic - I even don't like it. I also disagree that my and others' attempts at explaining this life are fallacious fundamentally. But so be it.

They are fallacious fundamentally... so why keep them?

Edit: Oh, you disagree that they are fallacious, haha! Totally misread that ^_^

---

The problem with your attempts at explaining life... is that you attach a purpose to that life, a greater meaning to existence. But no matter what purpose or lack of one: life does not disbecome itself.

Example:
You made a fire... you made it to cook food. If you had made it to get warm... is it any less a fire? If the fire was made by complete accident... is it any less a fire? No and no.

One's purpose does not describe their existence... it describes what they do (or are supposed to do) with their existence... but it matters to existence not at all.

(September 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm)ecolox Wrote: Well EvF and Retorth, that's your prerogative, but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important topic - I even don't like it. I also disagree that my and others' attempts at explaining this life are fallacious fundamentally. But so be it.

I too am baffled by how you can be so content with the idea of a supreme being but, as you said, its your prerogative.

Life isn't perfect. Nature gives us trees, flowers, forests, streams, rivers but nature also gives us earthquakes, thunder storms, avalanches, snow storms and hurricanes to name a few.

Imperfection is what makes life interesting. The desire to strive for that perfection is what keeps us progressing in technology and every day life alike.

(September 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm)ecolox Wrote: Well EvF and Retorth, that's your prerogative, but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important topic - I even don't like it.

Well whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. And if you don't know, then that's fine because you're not believing in something in the absence of evidence.

Quote:I also disagree that my and others' attempts at explaining this life are fallacious fundamentally. But so be it.

Well, simply stating that God is necessarily required for morality, or that God is necessarily required for an explanation for the universe, are fallacious arguments.

So be it, if, you will.

EvF

(September 22, 2009 at 5:27 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(September 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm)ecolox Wrote: Well EvF and Retorth, that's your prerogative, but I must say I don't understand how you can be content with "I don't know" on such an important topic - I even don't like it.

Well whether you like it or not is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. And if you don't know, then that's fine because you're not believing in something in the absence of evidence.

Wow, you're so quick to spout off what Richard Dawkins says you don't even know what you're talking about... There isn't an absence of evidence for something, that's for sure. We exist. You are not believing in something in the presence of evidence - you are ignoring the implications of the evidence.

Quote:I also disagree that my and others' attempts at explaining this life are fallacious fundamentally. But so be it.

EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Well, simply stating that God is necessarily required for morality, or that God is necessarily required for an explanation for the universe, are fallacious arguments.

Something is required for morality, and something is required for an explanation of the universe. I have found a reason for both morality and the universe through God.

Simply stating that you can be moral or that the universe just can exist is incredibly ignorant. For example: where do you base morality? Why shouldn't you kill (e.g. to mate with whomever you want to)? Why shouldn't you steal (since the fittest survive)?

What caused this existence and why does the universe exist? Are you working through the logical options right now, why or why not?

---

(September 22, 2009 at 2:02 pm)Saerules Wrote: The problem with your attempts at explaining life... is that you attach a purpose to that life, a greater meaning to existence. But no matter what purpose or lack of one: life does not disbecome itself.

Attaching a purpose to life is not a problem, it's only rational to believe that this universe exists for a reason. Atheists, generally, do not attempt to explain this existence (Dawkins said we should disregard the question) - that is a problem, it's irrational.

Quote:Example:
You made a fire... you made it to cook food. If you had made it to get warm... is it any less a fire? If the fire was made by complete accident... is it any less a fire? No and no.

One's purpose does not describe their existence... it describes what they do (or are supposed to do) with their existence... but it matters to existence not at all.

Fire always has a purpose - it burns stuff. It doesn't matter if you attach a purpose to the fire or not - the fire will always do its thing while it exists. Your assumption is that things can exist without reason, but that doesn't make any sense.