to the atheists on the board

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from stu:

“We” cannot imagine a time when the universe “existed unmanifested” . That is simply nonsense. You create God in your imagination and then you give it the ability to “imagine” a universe and then you say “We” can imagine that.

The concept of imagination is directly understood relative to the concept on non-imagination.

You have made a decision what is "real" based on material senses, material intellect, etc.

That is fine by me, your choice. Hence anything that doesn't meet your criteria is rejected as "imagination."

However, that is not a proof that your criteria is right when it comes to these concepts of God. It is just your criteria, it is arbitrary, and a mental construct. It is just an imagination that works for you, so you stick with it.

Unfortunately for your argument it has no credibility outside of a fantastic act of imagination, which had to be created within the existence of a universe which can only exist within space and time!.Badly mismatched analogy. but ahh… the Artist exists…and so does the stuff used to make the painting.

The argument has no credibility with you, no surprise. I have no concern with "your" sense of credibility.

You believe what you want, so do I, so does everyone else in this world, as we lack absoluteness to know for certain.

God ,you say, created the universe out of stuff that did not exist until God made it exist.

No, I did not say that. God manifest the universe out of His own nature.

Then there was no similar potential for the universe as there was for the painting.

Yes, the potential was always there.

The artist expresses this potential for the picture through paints which exist.

It is an analogy. You are lacking Divine perception, what else can I do to convey the ideas?

There is no painting where the paints do not first exist, and they must exist within a universe which only exists itself, like everything else of it and within it, by space and time , not through nothing.Then the universe is eternal by definition and concept also and therefore God did not create it. If the Universe was always there and God was always there, God did not create the universe.By whose definition? An apologist christian’s definition ? But that definition of God is certainly not a definition which is useful or realistic a definition, as is the universe when it is defined by space and time as existing.That may be the meaning of my definition only when obscured by the apologist-creationist viewpoint. The universe and everything in it and of it is definable as existing because of time and space. If God were outside that, then he doesn’t exist other than within your mind, which is and has to be within time and space for you to even realise it.If God was and is always there, then the same goes for the universe. If then by this, the universe was always there, then it was not created. Furthermore, you have no way of showing whether God ever existed ( however, the universe does) or if God could or could not come out of nothing.

Everything happens within God. The universe awakens, plays, and goes back to sleep within God.

You are obliged to ,and can only produce, your concept of “God does not come or go” by using the words within a universe which exists within space and time. There is no reason to assume therefore that God does not come and go, or indeed that God ever existed, when everything in existence is within space and time. Even your concepts. and your thoughts exist only in space and time.

I am obliged to nothing. You can either stay rigid in your thinking, or you can use your mental ability to imagine God's existence as being something opposite yours.

If God is outside space and time, then whatever it is that God is doing, God is not existing. Before time - (there is no “time before time”) – and before space, is not a concept ofexistence. All you are doing is pointlessly applying the somewhat relativistic concept of time to a meaningless concept of before time.

You continue to tell us you definition of what existence is. I think most people get your point of view by now.

I am talking about a Divine existence, God's existence, that is beyond space and time.

You have set up your criteria and your definition, and that is your world view. That doesn't mean it is the right criteria to use when discussing God.

I am suggesting that there is a different existence. You can accept or reject that concept as you wish.

The Artist analogy fails dismally, as described above

So it fails YOU. So what? Some people don't think Seinfeld is funny.

Some people get it, others don't.

 

[axeman]

Just goes to show that something being intuitive or not
carries no weight. Reality is reality, and it doesnt care
that you think its intuitive or not.

And THAT is why we must rely on real evidence and not
just fabricated unsupported hypothesis.

peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Hey, I was wondering if that was going to come back to bite me...

EARLIER when Shoe was debating AGAINST the probability of
life spawning in the universe he said it was counterintuitive in a NEGATIVE sense:

"I'm just saying imo life anywhere in the universe is counterintuitive."


NOW as he attempts to defend the absurdity of god
he says its counterintuitive in a POSITIVE sense:

"But the point is this: the universe is counterintuitive. "

 

[axeman]

ART: "So it fails YOU. So what? Some people don't think Seinfeld is funny. Some people get it, others don't."

Here we go again. The ART-centric world.

ART makes up a bunch of stupid unsupported mumbo jumbo
and when you find blatant errors in it, he appeals to
the old "It failed YOU" line, not me.

Well guess what.... you are NOT immune to the laws of reason,
logic and plain old common sense.

If stu shoots down what you said.... its not because it failed HIM,
its because what you said is idiotic and senseless

Same old typical ART crap. Claiming that we cant apply
science and logic and reason to HIM , as if he is some kind
of god beyond mere human intelligence.

Give us a break already. You simply dont make sense.
End of story.


peace

axeman

 

[They]

Conceptualizing matter and non-matter as being different is logical!

Some people do not posses sufficient intellect to discuss, even philosophically, the concept/reality that SPIRIT's ontological nature is eternal existence - not bound by time and space.

However, for the purpose of discussion if a person could at least philosophically conceive of a difference between matter and non-matter/spirit then a more productive and civil discussion could take place.

Of course it is LOGICAL for a person with limited intellect not to be able to conceive of complex philosophies let alone an absolute reality and discuss them with an open mind.

In other words, it is hard to convince a person with insufficient intellect that they possess insufficient intellect

No worries, if a person truly is scientific and not closed minded in their quest for knowledge the intellect can be developed.

 

[ARogueTrader]

I found an article that does a fine job of discussing an adult approach to the idea of Theism, Atheism, and Rationality.

Link here: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html

Excerpt from the article:

Obviously enough, the dispute here is ultimately ontological, or theological, or metaphysical; here we see the ontological and ultimately religious roots of epistemological discussions of rationality. What you take to be rational, at least in the sense in question, depends upon your metaphysical and religious stance. It depends upon your philosophical anthropology. Your view as to what sort of creature a human being is will determine, in whole or in part, your views as to what is rational or irrational for human beings to believe; this view will determine what you take to be natural, or normal, or healthy, with respect to belief. So the dispute as to who is rational and who is irrational here can't be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is fundamentally not an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. How can we tell what it is healthy for human beings to believe unless we know or have some idea about what sort of creature a human being is? If you think he is created by God in the image of God, and created with a natural tendency to see God's hand in the world about us, a natural tendency to recognize that he has been created and is beholden to his creator, owing his worship and allegiance, then of course you will not think of belief in God as a manifestation of wishful thinking or as any kind of defect at all. It is then much more like sense perception or memory, though in some ways much more important. On the other hand, if you think of a human being as the product of blind evolutionary forces, if you think there is no God and that human beings are part of a godless universe, then you will be inclined to accept a view according to which belief in God is a sort of disease or dysfunction, due perhaps, to a sort of softening of the brain.

So the dispute as to who is healthy and who diseased has ontological or theological roots, and is finally to be settled, if at all at that level. And here I would like to present a consideration that, I think tells in favor of the theistic way of looking at the matter. As I have been representing that matter, theist and atheist alike speak of a sort of dysfunction, of cognitive faculties or cognitive equipment not working properly, of their not working as they ought to. But how are we to understand that? What is it for something to work properly? Isn't there something deeply problematic about the idea of proper functioning? What is it for my cognitive faculties to be working properly? What is it for a natural organism-a tree, for example-to be in good working order, to be functioning properly? Isn't working properly relative to our aims and interests? A cow is functioning properly when she gives milk; a garden patch is as it ought to be when it displays a luxuriant preponderance of the sorts of vegetation we propose to promote. But then it seems patent that what constitutes proper functioning depends upon our aims and interests. So far as nature herself goes, isn't a fish decomposing in a hill of corn functioning just as properly, just as excellently, as one happily swimming about chasing minnows? But then what could be meant by speaking of "proper functioning" with respect to our cognitive faculties? A chunk of reality-an organism, a part of an organism, an ecosystem, a garden patch-"functions properly" only with respect to a sort of grid we impose on nature-a grid that incorporates our aims and desires.

But from a theistic point of view, the idea of proper functioning, as applied to us and our cognitive equipment, is not more problematic than, say, that of a Boeing 747's working properly. Something we have constructed-a heating system, a rope, a linear accelerator-is functioning properly when it is functioning in the way it was designed to function. My car works properly if it works the way it was designed to work. My refrigerator is working properly if it refrigerates, if it does what a refrigerator is designed to do. This, I think, is the root idea of working properly. But according to theism, human beings, like ropes and linear accelerators, have been designed; they have been created and designed by God. Thus, he has an easy answer to the relevant set of questions: What is proper functioning? What is it for my cognitive faculties to be working properly? What is cognitive dysfunction? What is it to function naturally? My cognitive faculties are functioning naturally, when they are functioning in the way God designed them to function.

On the other hand, if the atheological evidentialist objector claims that the theist without evidence is irrational, and if he goes on to construe irrationality in terms of defect or dysfunction, then he owes us an account of this notion. Why does he take it that the theist is somehow dysfunctional, at least in this area of his life? More importantly, how does he conceive dysfunction? How does he see dysfunction and its opposite? How does he explain the idea of an organism's working properly, or of some organic system or part of an organism's thus working? What account does he give of it? Presumably he can't see the proper functioning of my noetic equipment as its functioning in the way it was designed to function; so how can he put it?

Two possibilities leap to mind. First, he may be thinking of proper functioning as functioning in a way that helps us attain our ends. In this way, he may say, we think of our bodies as functioning properly, as being healthy, when they function in the way we want them to, when they function in such a way as to enable us to do the sorts of things we want to do. But of course this will not be a promising line to take in the present context; for while perhaps the atheological objector would prefer to see our cognitive faculties function in such a way as not to produce belief in God in us, the same cannot be said, naturally enough, for the theist. Taken this way the atheological evidentialist's objection comes to little more than the suggestion that the atheologician would prefer it if people did not believe in God without evidence. That would be an autobiographical remark on his part, having the interest such remarks usually have in philosophical contexts.

A second possibility: proper functioning and allied notions are to be explained in terms of aptness for promoting survival, either at an individual or species level. There isn't time to say much about this here; but it is at least and immediately evident that the atheological objector would then owe us an argument for the conclusion that belief in God is indeed less likely to contribute to our individual survival, or the survival of our species than is atheism or agnosticism. But how could such an argument go? Surely the prospects for a non-question begging argument of this sort are bleak indeed. For if theism-Christian theism, for example-is true, then it seems wholly implausible to think that widespread atheism, for example, would be more likely to contribute to the survival of our race than widespread theism.

By way of conclusion: a natural way to understand such notions as rationality and irrationality is in terms of the proper functioning of the relevant cognitive equipment. Seen from this perspective, the question whether it is rational to believe in God without the evidential support of other propositions is really a metaphysical or theological dispute. The theist has an easy time explaining the notion of our cognitive equipment's functioning properly: our cognitive equipment functions properly when it functions in the way God designed it to function. The atheist evidential objector, however, owes us an account of this notion. What does he mean when he complains that the theist without evidence displays a cognitive defect of some sort? How does he understand the notion of cognitive malfunction?

Quote from They:

Conceptualizing matter and non-matter as being different is logical!

Some people do not posses sufficient intellect to discuss, even philosophically, the concept/reality that SPIRIT's ontological nature is eternal existence - not bound by time and space.

However, for the purpose of discussion if a person could at least philosophically conceive of a difference between matter and non-matter/spirit then a more productive and civil discussion could take place.

Of course it is LOGICAL for a person with limited intellect not to be able to conceive of complex philosophies let alone an absolute reality and discuss them with an open mind.

In other words, it is hard to convince a person with insufficient intellect that they possess insufficient intellect

No worries, if a person truly is scientific and not closed minded in their quest for knowledge the intellect can be developed.

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:I agree that what is bound by time and space is the material universe. However, God by definition is not bound by time and space.

You say "God by definition is not bound by time and space. Then God is not defined.

There is no definition present or possible in 'anything' outside of time and space. Everything that is definable must be within time and space, otherwise it is simply indefinable.

If you say God is not bound by time and space then God does not exist. Existence is only within time and space.

Anything else is playing around with meaningless concepts and words. A time without time.... is gobbledegook. Space without space....is rubbish.

The rest of your response is an over emotional appeal to the nonsensical side of religious illusion which may be appealing to a naive observer, but has no useful meaning which explains anything outside of fantasy. If you like only fantasy then by all means remain in there, but making any sense out of an unknown always has and always will continue to require a lot more than that.

I think I need only refer to this which is so ironic

Me:
.....Only if God “existed” outside of time and space. If that were the case God did not exist, God was doing something else than existing.

ARogueTrader:
God doing something else but existing? Like what? Non-existing?

Bingo. You got it !!

 

[harrytrader]

I don't see the link between God and the martians

In mathematics there is a logic which is called "trivalent" logic where there is 3 states:
true, false ... or UNDETERMINED

a bit like buy, sell ... or DO NOTHING

As for God, I say that the question is a logical one, and that Science like Cosmology deals in fact with the question of God but the answer is still UNDETERMINED. That some people chose to believe in God is not more irrational than those who chose not to believe in God since the nature or existence of God is not known scientifically.

In Stock Market it is different because what is sure is that in Stock Market there are Human Interests and God has nothing to do with the Order that could exist there so that the term "Natural Order" associated with some divine order is ridiculous.

Quote from kungfoofighting:

For those who do not believe that there is a god, what would your reaction be if the mars rover sent back clear photos of a well built house on the martian surface(assuming that the photo was proven to be legitimate)?


--I originally posted this query at the tail end of a very long thread and decided to make it a new one. My apologies to those who have already replied. I am genuinely interested in hearing what your opinions would be.

 

[harrytrader]

This let me think about the raeliens sect (btw the sect guru is a french ) who pretend that the Bible has been mistranslated and that it should have been translated into GodS (plural) instead of God (singular) so that they pretend that this gives a clue that the God are some extra-terrestrials. Let's suppose that it is so that we have been cloned somehow by some ETs. Would I consider them as God ? Today we clone animals, if animals had metaphysical thoughts would some consider us as Gods ? In restrictive sense perhaps but it is not God in the ultimate sense since everybody knows I'm not God and you're not God either for sure. So I don't see why the presumable ETs if they exist should be considered as Gods either : We are exploiting the cloned animals why don't these ETs just exploit us also then through fake religions like some primitive black people in colonised world who believed that white race were Gods sent to them since according to Rael, the Guru of the sect, he has been abducted by some ETs in a spaceship ... to meet Jesus, Mahomet etc. ie the prophets of all Religions on Earth What I see is that these Religions provoke War and not Peace on Earth so that I would rather doubt their good intention then .

Quote from harrytrader:

I don't see the link between God and the martians

In mathematics there is a logic which is called "trivalent" logic where there is 3 states:
true, false ... or UNDETERMINED

a bit like buy, sell ... or DO NOTHING

As for God, I say that the question is a logical one, and that Science like Cosmology deals in fact with the question of God but the answer is still UNDETERMINED. That some people chose to believe in God is not more irrational than those who chose not to believe in God since the nature or existence of God is not known scientifically.

In Stock Market it is different because what is sure is that in Stock Market there are Human Interests and God has nothing to do with the Order that could exist there so that the term "Natural Order" associated with some divine order is ridiculous.

 

[harrytrader]

There seems to be much hoax debates around the ETs

http://www.jp-petit.com/Disclosure/disclosure_a_doubt.htm

I have a doubt About "Disclosure"

2003 march the 13 th. Completed on march 19 th

In 2001 I read through Dr Steven Greer's powerful declaration:

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

Greer expounds his claims: The Americans would have managed to understand numerous UFO-related mysteries and would now be intentionally withholding this technical -scientific knowledge from the world, thus preventing the beginning of a golden age on this earth. The discoveries withheld would in particular concern new sources of unlimited and not-polluting energy, allowing humankind to get rid of constraints linked to fossil and nuclear fuels. ( Disclosure means revelation )

The original text seems to be asking people involved in black programs to come forward and to share their knowledge with the world. All this is supported by some rather shallow testimonies coming from retired government officials.

In 2001, Greer changes his strategy, founds his own company

Space Energy Access Systems
www.SEASpower.com
PO Box 265
Crozet, VA 22932
Phone: 540-456-8302
Fax: 540-456-8303

and starts searching for the discovery of the new millennium, this new energy source capable of solving all problems of our planet.

In January 2003, he gives a spectacular radio interview broadcast all over the US.A summary of its main points is following:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 19 th . Message from Dr Jean-Pierre Petit, France, to Debbie Foch, webmaster of the disclosure project. 1

Dear Debbie,

In France, we are very surprized by your long silence. I have sent an important file to Disclosure before Christmas. No answer.

What is exactly Disclosure ?

If the fabulous invention mentioned by Dr Greer is nothing but a hoax all the project will collapse. But wasn't be planed ?

An hypothesis :

1 - Greer presents his claims in his website. He affirms his intention to fight with courage against authorities, in order to reveal truth.
2 - His efforts begins to look like a simple marketing operation.
3 - Then Greer searches "new energies"
4 - He finds rapidly a fabulous invention, converting vacuum energy into enectricity. The inventor is not a physicist but "a man who has a good feeling about electromagnetism".
5 - The invention turns to be a hoax.
6 - Greer is disqualified.
7 - Later, when another effort will be done in order to fight against cover-up policy people will say "same stuff. The things will turn like in Greer's story".

To sum up : is Disclosure a disinformation operation ?

Sincerely yours Dr Jean-Pierre Petit

 

[Turok]

>That some people chose to believe in God is not more
>irrational than those who chose not to believe in God
>since the nature or existence of God is not known
>scientifically.

By this logic is rational to believe in Santa, the Loch Ness Monster and ANY other construct of someone's imagination.

JB