Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
July 29, 2014 at 1:22 pm
The bible is like every other holy book in human history and the super natural characters in it are no different than the other god claims of other religions. They are concoctions of humans and comic books reflecting the beliefs of the people who wrote them back then.
A history of tradition does not make a belief true. Popularity of a belief does not make the belief true.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
July 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm (This post was last modified: July 29, 2014 at 10:55 pm by snowtracks.)
(July 29, 2014 at 7:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote:
(July 28, 2014 at 10:46 pm)snowtracks Wrote:
most of the cosmos's effects over the 13 billions haven't been observed by humans. now, angels that's might be different: God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?
[hide]
"How do you know the universe has a cause, then?"
have accepted that there is duel revelation: book of nature, book of scripture which will always be in harmony with no possibility of contradiction - this is stated in the belgic confession:
Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God
•We know him by two means:
First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.
Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.
however science in not the same as nature, and systematic theology is not the same as the words of scripture. like science , theology involves human interpretation which may be inaccurate. if there is discord between these two, there exist an incomplete understanding or faulty interpretation that will be resolve with a more complete knowledge. these are the two basic tools for the detectability of the divine.
[/hide]
So, my take home from all that is two things:
1) You seem to be implying that the cosmological argument is not a good one, as you seem to have abandoned it (yet you haven't explicitly said this).
2) The new way you're now defending knowing God's existence is a combination of trusting one particular book of mythology over all the others combined with lots of presupposition.
Am I right? Are you abandoning the cosmological argument as a valid way to assert God's existence?
never have posted an argument to prove God's existence; although, do think that the cosmological argument is persuasive . what i post are the viewpoints of a Christian that holds to a duel 'book' revelation which includes an 'old age earth' viewpoint. not my purpose to convert or cajole new age earth believers, or atheists. after all, i completely endorse free will (the garden of eden was 'very good' (not perfect), and God made it even better by introducing free will. one purpose for God creating the universe involves the excercise of free will: certain ones will elect to be part of the new creation. this current 'old universe will be destroyed by fire ("The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire...All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll"; the timing will be immediately after the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth (rather amazing that after 13 billion year, we are in astronomical time at the very edge of it's extinction, it will have served it's purposes).
it's clear that when everyone who dies, they will have a clear understanding that God exist. if they currently say they don't, that's because of a willful effort on their part; oftentimes, they cloak that willfulness with a veneer of citing intellectual problems with the evidence. that being said: the determining factor in being part of the new creation is not a belief in God existence.
(July 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm)rasetsu Wrote:
We've been through this before:
book of biblical scripture says Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down; book of nature says he did not.
book of biblical scripture says the Israelites migrated out of Egypt; book of nature says they did not.
book of biblical scripture says a global flood occurred; book of nature says it did not.
book of biblical scripture says that sin is transmitted by the flesh; book of nature shows no biological mechanism for the transmission of sin.
book of biblical scripture says we have an immaterial soul; book of nature says we have no such thing animating us, only biological brains.
have responded to the first 3.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
July 29, 2014 at 11:35 pm
(July 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm)snowtracks Wrote: it's clear that when everyone who dies, they will have a clear understanding that God exist. if they currently say they don't, that's because of a willful effort on their part; oftentimes, they cloak that willfulness with a veneer of citing intellectual problems with the evidence.
Fuck you, Snowy. You don't get to leap into our heads and tell us what we believe and why. You've been told this before, so now you're just lying.
Quote:have responded to the first 3.
... Which makes the rest of the list disappear completely?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
July 30, 2014 at 10:20 pm
(July 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm)snowtracks Wrote:
(July 29, 2014 at 7:52 am)RobbyPants Wrote: [/hide]
So, my take home from all that is two things:
1) You seem to be implying that the cosmological argument is not a good one, as you seem to have abandoned it (yet you haven't explicitly said this).
2) The new way you're now defending knowing God's existence is a combination of trusting one particular book of mythology over all the others combined with lots of presupposition.
Am I right? Are you abandoning the cosmological argument as a valid way to assert God's existence?never have posted an argument to prove God's existence; although, do think that the cosmological argument is persuasive . what i post are the viewpoints of a Christian that holds to a duel 'book' revelation which includes an 'old age earth' viewpoint. not my purpose to convert or cajole new age earth believers, or atheists. after all, i completely endorse free will (the garden of eden was 'very good' (not perfect), and God made it even better by introducing free will. one purpose for God creating the universe involves the excercise of free will: certain ones will elect to be part of the new creation. this current 'old universe will be destroyed by fire ("The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire...All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like a scroll"; the timing will be immediately after the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth (rather amazing that after 13 billion year, we are in astronomical time at the very edge of it's extinction, it will have served it's purposes).
it's clear that when everyone who dies, they will have a clear understanding that God exist. if they currently say they don't, that's because of a willful effort on their part; oftentimes, they cloak that willfulness with a veneer of citing intellectual problems with the evidence. that being said: the determining factor in being part of the new creation is not a belief in God existence.
(July 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm)rasetsu Wrote:
We've been through this before:
book of biblical scripture says Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down; book of nature says he did not.
book of biblical scripture says the Israelites migrated out of Egypt; book of nature says they did not.
book of biblical scripture says a global flood occurred; book of nature says it did not.
book of biblical scripture says that sin is transmitted by the flesh; book of nature shows no biological mechanism for the transmission of sin.
book of biblical scripture says we have an immaterial soul; book of nature says we have no such thing animating us, only biological brains.
have responded to the first 3.
#4- scripture says sin manifest itself thru acts of the flesh, not flesh transmitted. what scripture declares about the unique characteristics of the human species remains uncontradicted by scientific record which is among all life on earth, only humans are spiritual and, thus, only humans are capable of expressing sin and evil.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
July 30, 2014 at 10:24 pm
(July 30, 2014 at 10:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote: it's clear that when everyone who dies, they will have a clear understanding that God exist.
False, that is neither clear nor backed by any evidence.
What is clear is that no one knows for certain what awaits anyone after death. To make any certain claim without the evidence to support it is to be unreasonable and ignorant.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
July 31, 2014 at 10:42 pm
(July 29, 2014 at 1:03 pm)rasetsu Wrote:
We've been through this before:
book of biblical scripture says Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down; book of nature says he did not.
book of biblical scripture says the Israelites migrated out of Egypt; book of nature says they did not.
book of biblical scripture says a global flood occurred; book of nature says it did not.
book of biblical scripture says that sin is transmitted by the flesh; book of nature shows no biological mechanism for the transmission of sin.
book of biblical scripture says we have an immaterial soul; book of nature says we have no such thing animating us, only biological brains.
#5 -
the book of nature is not the same as the philosophical or scientific interpretations of nature. materialism is theory of physical matter: definition - everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
even one of your own, top drawer eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel says "Nagel affirms that he’s an atheist, but he also asserts that there’s an entirely different realm of non-physical stuff that exists—namely, mental stuff." http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turn...s-are-real
ref book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - philosopher Thomas Nagel - academic scholar at New York University.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
August 1, 2014 at 2:41 am
(July 31, 2014 at 10:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: #5 -
the book of nature is not the same as the philosophical or scientific interpretations of nature. materialism is theory of physical matter: definition - everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
So basically you get around being wrong about what biology says by redefining what's in nature to exclude what science actually says, and to include all the stuff you want to believe. What justification do you have to do that, beyond your opinion? And why on earth do you think that fiat redefinition would be at all compelling to us?
Quote:even one of your own, top drawer eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel says "Nagel affirms that he’s an atheist, but he also asserts that there’s an entirely different realm of non-physical stuff that exists—namely, mental stuff." http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turn...s-are-real
As if being an atheist lends automatic support from the rest of us? No, atheists disagree with each other all the time. Besides, he's a philosopher, he has no experience with which he can comment on neuroscience or biology.
Also, just saying, you're drawing a reference from an atheist in order to support your unjustified assertion that there's a soul, and then specifically quoting that the guy believes in "mental stuff" which says nothing about a soul. You're just waffling on, now.
I also happen to think these anti-materialist woo-woo guys miss the boat: "Derived solely from physical matter," does not mean "only physical matter." The "mental stuff" Nagel's talking about is a process, not an object, emergent from the physical arrangement of the brain.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
August 1, 2014 at 10:26 am
(July 29, 2014 at 10:52 pm)snowtracks Wrote: it's clear that when everyone who dies, they will have a clear understanding that God exist. if they currently say they don't, that's because of a willful effort on their part; oftentimes, they cloak that willfulness with a veneer of citing intellectual problems with the evidence. that being said: the determining factor in being part of the new creation is not a belief in God existence.
It is clear that you made a bunch of baseless claims to handwave your lack of an argument. Do you have any evidence for those claims that doesn't rely on presupposition?
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
August 1, 2014 at 10:51 am
(July 31, 2014 at 10:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: #5 -
the book of nature is not the same as the philosophical or scientific interpretations of nature. materialism is theory of physical matter: definition - everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
If "the book of nature" isn't what science says it is, then from where do you get your information about what "the book of nature" says?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
