I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

You can easily make up a character that is beyond provable and disprovable.

But that is not what you did, or what atheists do when they commit the fallacy of arbitrary predication of divine attributes. What they do is call the spaghetti monster or easter bunny God.

There is a god and his name is Jad and you cannot see him nor hear him and nor can you detect him but he is there. "who I call Jad is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent rather than contingent."

You can call God Jad if you want to. Or you can call God Bob. It makes no difference.

If you grant all the necessary attributes of transcendence (divine simplicity) then you have already granted that what I call God exists.

[Dotard]

And No Jon, No. The flying spaghetti monster is the transcendent other. It is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent. It is your imaginary man made God which is worldly, material, spatial and temporal and a contingent object.

Your God simply does not live up to the criteria of transcendence.

[Ace Otana]

You can easily make up a character that is beyond provable and disprovable.

But that is not what you did, or what atheists do when they commit the fallacy of arbitrary predication of divine attributes. What they do is call the spaghetti monster or easter bunny God.

There is a god and his name is Jad and you cannot see him nor hear him and nor can you detect him but he is there. "who I call Jad is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent rather than contingent."

You can call God Jad if you want to. Or you can call God Bob. It makes no difference.

If you grant all the necessary attributes of transcendence (divine simplicity) then you have already granted that what I call God exists.

Wrong again. You have been believing in this god feller who happens to be santa as well. It is a character no differant from any other. You can change it's name, it's purpose or whatever. Jad is your god, Jad is one of many characters that can be ultered at any given time.

Easter bunnys and unicorns are no differant from your god. They are all one big thought up family. Neither of them less or more special or more likely.

"If you grant all the necessary attributes of transcendence (divine simplicity) then you have already granted that what I call Jad exists." Remember! It's just a name. Whatever you call your friend makes no differance. No book, story, belief, name or purpose will make any differance. God is no more likely than any other thought up charater. God is no more differant.

[Minimalist]

RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

(Today 11:35)Minimalist Wrote: How convenient.

If that is not the case, then I must ask which discipline of modern science should test the hypothesis of

But it surely is the case. You (and all other theists from the dawn of time) have invented a being which is "conveniently" beyond any empirical test. As such you are free to espouse your belief in it....or Santa Claus for that matter....to your heart's content without ever having to face reality.

Enjoy yourself. Such preposterous nonsense is nowhere near good enough for me.

My only complaint with theists is when they take their bullshit outside of their homes and churches and start insisting that your superstitions be enacted into our laws and/or schools. Believe what you wish but leave others alone.[/quote]

[Jon Paul]

Has it ever occurred to you that the church fathers interpretations of scripture in part or in whole could also be erroneous?They are men just like us and are not infallible in any sense so to say that just because they have studied the scriptures all of their lives does not make them entirely correct.

Of course it has occured. But I believe more in the fathers than in your private interpretation. Both because I think they are at a better intellectual position to interpret it, and because they are the Fathers of the very Church that I am a member of. The real question is if it has ever occured to you that your private interpretation could be errorneous, and in any case, that it doesn't represent my belief?

You said:"As a sidenote, light (photons) existence precedes the existence of the sun, anyway."If this is true it is irrelevant because the Earth derives its light from the sun.

It is not irrelevant in a cosmic order. And the sun did exist in the beginning.

He made the sun and the moons and the stars on the fourth day.So it looks like your orthodox interpreters were wrong and simply practicing what church fathers did best:Apologetics!In case you are wondering I was going to leave this issue alone but your calling me stupid just set me off again.

You are taking the verse out of it's context. Now, read it into it's context again, specifically the context that the universe, or the "all" has already been created in Genesis 1:1, in which God has already made the "heaven and the earth", which is the Hebrew idiom for "all", or "universe" in the Latin, or the "cosmos" in the Greek. What proceeds is the hexaemeron. You need to understand what the hexaemeron describes. It describes Gods elective creative activity of the Earth, the planet in which God creates Man and in which God becomes Man and men become as gods. That is it's significance.

St. Basils homilies on the Old Testament are probably the most extensive and releveant here.:

“By the two extremes (of heaven and earth) Moses alludes to the existence of everything”, says Basil the Great, “assigning a prior beginning to the heaven and saying that the earth is second in existence. Nevertheless, whatever exists between the two extremes was likewise made with them. Even though he says nothing about the elements of fire, water, and air, use your intelligence, and you will understand, first of all, that all [elements] are mixed with all others and that, along with the earth, you will also find water and air and fire”. (Hex., Hom. I, 7)

All things already existed from the first day of creation. “God created the heaven and the earth, not each one by halves, but the entire heaven and the whole earth, including the substance itself with form. He is not merely the inventor of the shapes, but the Creator of the very nature of’ all that exists…The Scriptural narrative is silent and exercises our mind to work, giving it a few things in order to be able to deduce from them the remainder”. (Basil the Great, Hex., Hom. II, 3)

On verse 2 (The earth was invisible and without form and darkness was over the deep and the Spirit of
God moved over the water): “Here again are more occasions for myths and sources of impious fabrications by men who twist the sayings [of Scripture] to agree with their own conceptions. They do not explain the darkness to be what it really is: air that does not receive light, or a place that is shaded or, in any case, bereft of light for any reason. They explain it as an evil power, or rather as self-existent evil itself that is adversarial and hostile to God… Why, O man, do you flee far from the truth, with intentions that will occasion your destruction? The expression is simple and understood by everyone. It says the earth was not visible. What was the reason? Because it was covered by the ‘deep.’ And what is the meaning of the ‘deep?’ A great deal of water of unfathomable depth..”. (Hom. 1I, 4)

“When the heaven was made by God’s command, in a moment it extended to fill its region, and it enclosed all that was in it as a continuous mass capable of dividing what was contained within from what was outside of it, thus making the space it enclosed unlighted by cutting off external light. Three things together are necessary for a shadow to exist: the light, a mass, and an unlighted place. Therefore, the darkness that covered the earth was due to the shadow of the heavenly mass [of vapor]. Try to understand me through this clear example: At midday you set up a tent of thick, impenetrable material and you shut yourself up in this improvised darkness. This is how you should imagine that darkness…At that time the water covered everything. This is why the darkness necessarily was said to be over the deep”. (Hom. II, 5)

In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was
invisible and without form and darkness was over the deep and the Spirit of
God moved over the water.

So God has made the universe, including the Earth. The Earth is "invisible, without form, and darkness is over it", at this point.

Now, the hexaemeron proceeds. The first day describes the creation of light:

And God said, Let light be created, and light was
created. And God saw the light that it was good, and God divided between the
light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the
darkness He called Night, and there was evening and there was morning, the
first day.

And the firmament in the Earth is described in the second day:

And God said, Let a firmament be created in the midst of the water, and
let it be a division between water and water, and it was so. And God made the
firmament, and God divided between the water, which was under the
firmament, and the water, which was above the firmament. And God called the
firmament Sky, and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there
was morning, the second day.

Now, this firmament is the space between a heavenly mass of water [vapour] and the earthly water on top of the earth. So the light is not yet in the firmament of the sky, and "darkness and invisibility" is still over the Earth.

First when we go to the fourth day, in which "luminaries are created in the firmament of the sky", the darkness and invisibillity is dissolved:

And, God said Let luminaries be created in the firmament of the sky to
give light upon the earth, to divide between day and night, and let them be for
signs and for seasons and for days and for years. And let them be for light in
the firmament of the sky, so as to shine upon the earth, and it was so. And
God made the two great luminaries.

Before, the dense heavenly mass of dense clouds remained suspended above the firmament. Between these clouds and the ocean there was clear space, which the Scripture calls the “firmament” (1:6-8). Finally, much later, on the fourth day of creation, the clouds dispersed and broke up and separated as we see them today, permitting the clear sky to appear, and the sun, the moon, and the stars with it. It says on the fourth day specifically that the luminaries are made "in the firmament of the sky to give light upon the Earth". The Hebrew says "hayah", meaning "made to appear". The luminaries are now made in the firmament of the sky, and the light is in the firmament of the Earth, as opposed to in verse 2, in which "darkness and invisibillity" was upon the Earth. So God did not create the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. He made the two great lights in the firmament, along with other lights (the stars). We are talking specifically about the firmament, not about the sun or the universe or earth apart from the firmament.

So now you are telling me only those who can read/write/understand the original language of the texts can correctly figure out what the fuk this God is trying to say? And only those who spend a lifetime in peity "studying" this book can 'correctly' interpret it?

No, I am not saying that. If you are in doubt about what I said, read it again. I said that some peoples interpretations (the Church Fathers, who indeed have spent their whole lives studying it in it's original languages also) are more reliable than other peoples interpretations (chatpilot, who opens to book and jumps to a conclusion by taking things out of their context, like all good protestants).

Your God sucks for not making it (the proper/correct meanings) readily accessible to every human.

He did make everything we needed to know accessible, to humanity in it's prelapsarian state.

As to this fallen state, it is humanitys own responsibility that it has rejected Gods graces and fallen into ignorance.

And exactly because of that, there is a such thing as invincible ignorance. And everyone will be judged according to the light they have received.

The flying spaghetti monster is the transcendent other. It is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent. It is your imaginary man made God which is worldly, material, spatial and temporal and a contingent object.

It is not transcendent. It is made of spaghetti (matter) in time and space. And it is flying.

It is simply a straw man of arbitrary, and even self-contradictory (if you call it 'transcendent') predication.

---

But it surely is the case. You (and all other theists from the dawn of time) have invented a being which is "conveniently" beyond any empirical test. As such you are free to espouse your belief in it....or Santa Claus for that matter....to your heart's content without ever having to face reality.

It is not beyond empirical and rational test. If I believed that, I wouldn't make an argument for Gods existence based on empirical knowledge of the universe. What I said was that it is beyond direct empirical observation, like many other things, for instance, other consciousnesses and minds. We can only observe the mechanisms associated with them, not directly observe the consciousness/mind itself. Or, if you see a footprint on the ground and no one around, you can presume that someone has been around even though they are beyond direct observation, that footprint (or a fingerprint) still serves as empirical evidence after the effect. This footprint metaphor describes how we can know God through empirical a posteriori knowledge of the observed universe and its nature, as done in my argument.

The reason it is beyond scientific test is not because it's outside direct empirical observation (many things in science are, and yet they are attested to by empirical evidence after the effect), it is because the scientific method a priori excludes anything outside of the natural world as within the scope of it's investigation. It is the philosophical presupposition of naturalism; methodological naturalism.

[Dotard]

Many years ago a skeptic probably pointed out to a catholic dude named Basils the very same things Chatpilot is pointing out to Jon.

Mr Basils then writes a whole shit-load of words to say "Goddidit".

Yup, that Mr. Basils is one smart puppy. Convinced me it did. And it was all so obvious too.

Please excuse me now as I scamper down to the local catholic church and get to convertin'.

[Ace Otana]

Years after years of hearing utter bullshit and it has never changed. So many words all to say so little. I guess that's religion for you. A pile of words that carry no weight.

[Dotard]

And another thing;

You claim, since some chick and dude named Adam ate a piece of fruit after God told them not to, that it is now my responsibility to seek out the catholic church to garner my info about the salvation of my mortal soul? Because, as you said, we don't have time to do it ourselves as it requires a lifetime of pious study.

Oh wait! Then you say something to the effect that I need not worry because on judgement day you'll be judged upon how much correct info you have been given? How much you were "shown the light" or however stupid way you put it.

If so arn't you now responsible for my damnation as you are "showing me the light" and I reject your "my interpretations are the only correct ones" contention? You coulda just left well enough alone and me, in my ignorance cause I didn't even know what "patristic" meant until reading this thread, coulda slipped right by on judgement day. Damn you Jon.

[Ace Otana]

A large number of words jon used were not even words according to the cambridge dictionary.
I wonder if he was using all kinds of words that some were not even actual words to confuse and evade questions. "patristic, nonspatial, nontemporal, subsistent, epistemically, actualising". All these words were not recognised in the dictionary. I thought I saw something off when I was reading his posts. I read words that I did not recognise.
Odd that.

That's why I like straight answers. That way it's harder for them to evade.

[Jon Paul]

Years after years of hearing utter bullshit and it has never changed. So many words all to say so little. I guess that's religion for you. A pile of words that carry no weight.

Thats very easy to say. I could say the same about antitheists. But it makes no difference, without actual argumentation.

You claim, since some chick and dude named Adam ate a piece of fruit after God told them not to, that it is now my responsibility to seek out the catholic church to garner my info about the salvation of my mortal soul? Because, as you said, we don't have time to do it ourselves as it requires a lifetime of pious study.

Of course it's your own responsibility. You have a right to death and to hell.

Oh wait! Then you say something to the effect that I need not worry because on judgement day you'll be judged upon how much correct info you have been given? How much you were "shown the light" or however stupid way you put it.

That means that some gentile in a jungle isn't going to be judged for rejecting God on equal terms as a person with knowledge of Christianity. That is just a matter of justice. Perhaps his natural intuition of good will suffice for his salvation, only God knows, for God has written goodness in our hearts, in spite of the corruption of the fall which may cloud it, people still have a basic natural sense of the eternal law which might prevail over the temptations and the evils of this world. This natural sense is also called natural law.

If so arn't you now responsible for my damnation as you are "showing me the light" and I reject your "my interpretations are the only correct ones" contention?

That a person will be judged according to the light they have received, means that God will judge each one of us justly. So no, I am not responsible for your damnation. And who even says you will be damned? You are pretending to be God if you pretend to that knowledge. You are responsible for your own salvation, and if God damns you, that implicitly means that you have rejected God, for God sees all. And that also means choosing hell, for hell means the rejection of God, and thereby separation from communion with God.

You coulda just left well enough alone and me, in my ignorance cause I didn't even know what "patristic" meant until reading this thread, coulda slipped right by on judgement day. Damn you Jon.

You assume that you will be damned, which is a knowledge reserved to God, not to humans.

As Christians, our objective is not to say who is damned and who is not. We should rather focus on the miserableness of our own soul, rather than that of others. We should damn ourselves to hell, not others.

This is a lesson American evangelicals clearly haven't learnt. They tend to pretend to be the divine judge of who is damned and who is saved. They tell others that they will burn in hell, while they should be keeping their own mind in hell, for they don't know the destiny of others, or even if their own, since some of them may have rejected the True God and Gods True Church. Only God knows that destiny.

---

A large number of words jon used were not even words according to the cambridge dictionary.
I wonder if he was using all kinds of words that some were not even actual words to confuse and evade questions. "patristic, nonspatial, nontemporal, subsistent, epistemically, actualising". All these words were not recognised in the dictionary. I thought I saw something off when I was reading his posts. I read words that I did not recognise.
Odd that.

What dictionary have you been using? All those are words, though you are not writing them in their root from. Patristic (Christian term, referring to the Church Fathers), temporal (from Latin temporalis meaning "of time", as in temporary), spatial (meaning of space from Latin spatium), subsistence (from Latin subsistentia (sub+sistere) meaning substance, that which "stands under", and is independent, as opposed to standing "on top of" (super) - Latin form of Greek hypostasis), epistemic (from Greek episteme (epi- "over, near" + histasthai "to stand."), meaning to "understand"/"overstand", to know), actual (from Latin actus, meaning real or existing, as opposed to possible/potential).